COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, 11/19/01 10:30 a.m. - - - RES. 010218 - Authorizing the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development to hold hearings which investigate the planning process, the 1997 HOPE VI application, and the current proposed development plan for the Schuylkill Falls Public Housing Authority site in order to determine if the current proposed development plan conforms to the 1997 application submitted to and approved the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to further determine the extent to which any amendments, development agreements, or any other documents related to this HOPE VI award materially modify any of the commitments, representations, or promises made to the Schuylkill Falls Tenant Council, the East Falls Community Council, public officials, or other interested parties; and further authorizing the committee to issue subpoenas as may be necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents to the full extent authorized under Section 2-401 of the Home Rule Charter in furtherance of such investigation. PRESENT: Councilman Michael A. Nutter, Chairman Councilman Frank DiCicco, Vice Chair Councilman Darrell L. Clarke Councilman Angel Ortiz - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 11/19/01 COMMERCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETING I N D E X WITNESS Richard Lampert, President .................... East Falls Community Council Trellie Johnakin, President ................... 27 Schuylkill Falls Tenant Council Carolyn Sutton, President ..................... 41 East Falls Development Corporation Julie Camburn, President ...................... 47 East Falls Business Association Marjorie Greenfield, Vice President ........... 80 East Falls Community Council; Doris Woods and Roxanne Destout ............... 94 Residents relocated to Fairhill Housing Development Roxanne Destout, Schuylkill Falls Resident .... 94 Prince Muhammad-El ............................ 98 Hired by Universal, provide self-sufficiency training Alan Kessler, Esquire; Abbe Fletman, Esquire 109 Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, LLP Counsel for PHA John Estey, Esquire ........................... 111 Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP Council for Carl Greene, Former Mayor Edward Rendell Robert Totaro, Vice President ................. 138 PenRose Properties Shahied Dawan, CEO, Universal Community Homes 138 - - - 3 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Good morning. This is a hearing by the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. To my left is Councilmember DiCicco, Vice Chair of the committee, and I'm Councilman Nutter, Chair of the committee. We are convening today to take testimony with regard to Resolution 8 No. 010218.
Resolution No. 010218, a resolution authorizing the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development to hold hearings which investigate the planning process, the 1997 HOPE VI application, and the current proposed development plan for the Schuylkill Falls Public Housing Authority site in order to determine if the current proposed development plan conforms to the 1997 application submitted to and approved the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and to further determine the extent to which any amendments, development agreements, or any other documents related to this HOPE VI award materially modify any of the commitments, representations, or promises made to the Schuylkill Falls Tenant Council, the East Falls Community Council, public officials, or other interested parties; and further 4 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 authorizing the committee to issue subpoenas as may be necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents to the full extent authorized under Section 2-401 of the Home Rule Charter in furtherance of such investigation.
Thank you. Let me just make a couple opening remarks, and we have a list of individuals who were either invited or who have confirmed to be here with us today. If you are not sure if your name is on the list, please see the clerk of the committee so that we can make sure that anyone who wishes to have the opportunity to testify will be able to do so. From my perspective, the primary purpose of today is to try to get a better understanding if not get to the bottom of a whole host of questions that have been asked over time with regard to this development, both from its inception with regard to the application the items that were material to that application and which the community supported at the time of application. It appears that a number of things have happened along the way, and I think to the greatest extent possible, I'd like to stay focused on what 5 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 those issues are, how we might be able to reasonably resolve them, and ultimately get, at least in my opinion, the best possible development at a quite unique site in a good neighborhood here in the City. To the extent that there may be constraints or restrictions or other issues, I think we need to try to explore them as much as possible, figure out what hurdles we may have to overcome, and then get to again what I think is the ultimate bottom line -- a good development, if not a superior development, for not only residents of that particular newly developed site but also the surrounding neighborhood. Having said that, first on today's agenda -- we recognize Councilman Clarke, who has just joined us as a member of the committee. We initially were anticipating the presence of Mr. Michael Levine, Acting Secretary's Representative for the Mid-Atlantic Region of the Office of Housing and Urban Development for the agency nationally known as HUD. I received a letter this morning from Mr. Levine, which I will read into the record, and the letter will become a part of the today's record. 6 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 This is dated November 19th, it's addressed to myself. "Dear Mr. Nutter: Thank you for your invitation to provide testimony at your City Council hearing on the Schuylkill Falls HOPE VI grant. I regret that I am unable to accept your invitation at this time, particularly in view of the pending lawsuit related to this grant that names HUD as a defendant. "The intent of the HOPE VI program is to replace severely distressed public housing with mixed-income communities of opportunity. In cities across the United States, HOPE VI developments have revitalized neighborhoods, improved housing, and helped families become self-sufficient. Former residents either secure units within the revitalized development or receive Housing Choice Vouchers which allow them to live affordably in housing they locate in neighborhoods they choose. "The Department of Housing and Urban Development has previously addressed issues related to the Schuylkill Falls HOPE VI grant. The attached was a response to a letter from an East Falls resident. 7 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 "If you have additional questions concerning the Schuylkill Falls HOPE VI, I invite you to submit them in writing and we will respond accordingly. Thank you again for your kind invitation." (Copy of Levine letter attached hereto.)
Just by way of additional information, the letter that the Secretary's Representative made reference to, the attachment was a letter that was dated August 14, 2001 from the Secretary's Representative to a constituent. Her name is Ms. Linda T. Kish, and that was in response to a letter that she wrote to, it appears, Secretary Martinez back in July of 2001. These both of these letters will be entered into the record for today's proceedings. (Copy of Kish letter attached hereto.)
We have two other items of written testimony which we will enter into the record. They are by former residents of Schuylkill Falls. And at this time, I would ask somewhat in 8 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 a panel fashion -- and I'll leave it to the -- I'll leave to it my constituents to figure out who they want to have go first. Mr. Richard Lampert, President of the East Falls Community Council; Ms. Trellie Johnakin, President of the Schuylkill Falls Tenant Council; Miss Carolyn Sutton, President of the East Falls Development Corporation; and Miss Julie Camburn, President of the East Falls Business Association. If those four individuals could come up to the witness table. (Witnesses come forward.)
I'm also informed, at least presently -- and again, as people come in, if they could let Miss Chapman know of your presence and your interest in testifying. I understand that we have Doris Woods, Roxanne Destout, and Prince Muhammad-El. those individuals will have an opportunity to testify as well if they choose.
Good morning, Councilman Nutter. My name is Meg Greenfield. I was specifically asked to read to this committee the statement from one of the former tenants and not just -- unless you're going to read the whole thing 9 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 into the record, I would like an opportunity to do that.
That was the written testimony that I referred to earlier; I just didn't say whose it was. That would have been on my list. I have that there's written testimony from Ms. Martha Hackett, former resident of Schuylkill Falls; as well as Miss Portia Harrison, former resident of Schuylkill Falls. We have written testimony from those two individuals that will be read into the record. (Hackett and Harrison letters attached hereto.)
Why don't I proceed with what I'd collectivity call the neighborhood or resident testimony. And have you had any opportunity to kind of figure out who'd like to go first? Mr. Lampert, if you're going to go first, then proceed.
Okay, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing to investigate the 10 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 situation regarding the Schuylkill Falls Public Housing Authority site.
Mr. Lampert, I'm sorry please identify yourself for the record.
Okay. My name is Richard Lampert. I live at 3122 West Coulter Street in East Falls. I'm about seven tenths of a mile from the Schuylkill Falls site, according to the odometer on my car. Thank you for calling this hearing to investigate the situation. As President of East Falls Community Council, I extend my personal thanks and those of our members for your efforts to increase public understanding regarding this issue. I might add that with the relatively short notice for this meeting, the fact that we're meeting in the middle of a Monday morning in a short work week, it's been difficult for most of our members to attend here personally today. I am assured that they're interested, and I appreciate their support even if they're not here. I myself have been active in the East Falls Community Council and other community volunteer activities almost since the day my wife 11 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 and I moved to East Falls from Chicago. For us, East Falls was, and is, a community of choice. We love being a part of the community. We're proud to own a home, worn slate roof and all in East Falls. For me, the Schuylkill Falls issue is as important as a family crisis. Getting this development right is vital to the City overall and to the East Falls community in particular. It should be of major concern to the committee on Commerce and Economic Development. The Schuylkill Falls site has been a highly visual failure. It's time to make it a highly visible success, a symbol of Philadelphia's commitment to building stable communities that will retain current residents who have a choice about where to live as well as the City's commitment to attract new residents who want to invest in City life. From the perspective of the East Falls community specifically, the next development at Schuylkill Falls will have a direct impact on the viability of the commercial strip along Ridge Avenue in East Falls. This blighted strip -- currently blighted strip -- should offer goods and services 12 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 for all East Falls residents, and if an outstanding new housing development is its anchor, we all believe that merchants will join in a renaissance along the Ridge. On a citywide basis, the Schuylkill Falls site offers enormous opportunities as well as enormous risks for the image of the City of Philadelphia throughout the metropolitan area. Think about the site. It's a steep hill easily visible from the Schuylkill Expressway and Kelly Drive. For years, everyone passing the site saw the Schuylkill Falls project as the first obvious sign of urban blight as they came into the City. For the moment, they're looking at that cleared hill site and wondering daily whether Philadelphia is capable of building a development that is worthy of the site. If we build the development that was described by PHA in 1997, we can demonstrate that the City of Philadelphia really can do first-class work -- architecturally worthy, financially smart, and socially progressive. However, if we replace a 50-year-old failed project with a brand-new failure to be, we reinforce the notion that Philadelphia 13 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 can't transcend mediocrity. The site presents a unique opportunity for Philadelphia Housing Authority. This is the only PHA site with a view across miles of park land to the towers of Liberty Place. Residents will have Fairmount Park at their doorstep, they will be steps away from a SEPTA regional rail station offering an 11-minute community to Center City. Their neighbors will be laborers, plumbers, librarians, artists, college students, doctors, and lawyers of East Falls; truly an economically socially and racially diverse community. It would be downright pigheaded if PHA settled for a replay of its dismal record of the last 50 years. With this site and the vigor of the surrounding community, PHA has to be bold. If they can't innovate here, they're incapable of innovation.
If they're incapable of innovation, why are we tolerating them? Now I want to discuss this history from the perspective of a long-time interested citizen of East Falls and as the current president of East Falls Community Council. As far as most East Falls citizens and 14 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 organizations are concerned, this story begins in the spring of 1997. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a grant from the Hope VI Program. The key events in the planning process were three or four charrettes with planners and architects. These charrettes drew hundreds of Fallsers from all segments of East Falls society. Working-class people met side by side at these charrettes with professionals and with tenants of the existing Schuylkill Falls housing project, and the result reflected ideas and concerns from all of us. Building on ideas brought to the community by PHA, the process generated a plan that won widespread support from community organizations, educational institutions, houses of worship, and individual citizens. The resulting plan had seven key elements. First, the plans called for a truly mixed-income community, a blend of 50 percent 15 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 middle-income and 50 percent lower-income residents. Second, half of the units, 50 percent, were to be sold to homeowners for community stability, while half would be rented. In turn, half of the rental unit and half of the sales units would be market-rate, and the other half would be subsidized. Third, residents would be mixed across the site, without regard to income or whether the home was owner-occupied or a rental. PHA said of these charrettes, You won't be able to tell who's living where; whether driving down the street or looking at the site from a distance, it would be impossible to look at a certain home and know whether it was owned or rented or whether the residents were middle or lower income. PHA and planners stressed this point. They said this would create the healthiest possible development, a development which would really blend into the larger East Falls community. Fourth, PHA committed to a site-based waiting list for the subsidized units with resident-selection criteria that would emphasize self-sufficiency. Fifth, the tenants had stated that they 16 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 were proud of the community that they had built at Schuylkill Falls, and they wanted to stay together. In response to this, PHA promised to build a development in two phases so that tenants could move to one part of the old site while new homes were built. Then those who qualified could move into new homes, and the second phase would be built. PHA promised the then-current tenants of Schuylkill Falls that many of them would be able to remain on site during the construction process. Sixth, PHA promised beautiful homes that would reflect the architectural richness of East Falls. They presented similarly beautiful renderings of the new community, reflecting this commitment. Seventh and finally, PHA stated that this new development would end the isolation of the residents on the site. Based on these representations, most community organizations, including East Falls Community Council, offered enthusiastic support for the HOPE VI application. I might add that most organizations offered support despite the fact that they had not had an opportunity to review the actual 17 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 application. PHA promised, and the East Falls community believed, that PHA would build a new community that would be a model for the nation and a fine new neighborhood for East Falls. Two years elapsed. In the fall of 1999, PHA came to the East Falls Community Council with an urgent request for its support of some 167 proposed zoning variances. PHA said they needed the variances right then in order to qualify for tax credit financing essential to the project.
Despite grave concerns about apparent changes to the plan with no community input and frustration at the fruitless efforts to get adequate information from PHA, after heated discussion -- and I was as hot as anybody -- Community Council voted to support this request subject to conditions spelled out in a written agreement. I believe your office has a copy of that agreement; if you do need another copy, I will be sure to send that to you. I had intended to have a copy with me this morning, I apologize for that. As a result of the agreement made by the Council with the developers, an ad hoc liaison committee of Community Council started meeting with 18 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 the newly-appointed lead developer Penrose Properties, a developer that admitted it had no 4 experience with market-rate housing. Well, when members of this ad hoc committee asked to see public documents, public documents, to better understand the details of the development as it was then envisioned, PHA denied them access. In July of 2001, East Falls Community Council filed an action under the Commonwealth's Right to Know Statute, and in mid-November, under a court order, we received most of the documents we sought, including the master development agreement between PHA and the developer. The documents revealed that PHA had contracted with the developer for a vastly different community than PHA had promised and, I might add, that PHA had promised the community at large in 1997, and, I might add, vastly different than the representations made in the HOPE VI application. The changes since 1997 were startling, they amounted to bait-and-switch tactics against the community, against the tenants, and, indeed, against the HOPE VI criteria. First, the development contract in the 19 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 financing package dealt with an entirely low-income community. All but 28 of those units would be rental. Every unit was to be subsidized such that income levels would be restricted dramatically. There was no private financing, there was no 7 market-rate housing, no market-rate housing. Second, this altered development was to be built entirely on one half of the site. No matter what might eventually happen on the rest of the site, you'll be able to look at that site and know immediately that everyone living on the southern part of that site is low-income and that the vast majority of the people on that part of the site are renters. Gone was the social and economic integration that PHA had promised. The new plan recreates the same undesirable isolation of low-income residents that PHA said it intended to end. Third, PHA compelled all of the existing residents to move from the site. PHA justified this change by claiming that it would enable construction of the infrastructure in one phase instead of two. They said this would save the City about a million dollars. Contrary to this representation, once the 20 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 tenants were moved, PHA cleared only a part of the site. There are still old housing units at the top of the site. Moreover, the current infrastructure project is confined to the projected low-income semi-development. The contractors work is for that half only; there are no bids having been solicited for the rest of the site. There is no million dollar saving on the cost of infrastructure, yet PHA and the developer now have the temerity, as we understand it, to ask the City for another $2 million for infrastructure. And despite the promises made to the tenants, they are now scattered throughout the City. Fourth, drawings presented by PHA, after what they call "value engineering," demonstrated that the process has taken a terrible toll on the quality and beauty of the homes. These homes will look like poor relatives within East Falls.
Fifth -- this follows from the other comments -- by packing only low-income people into an easily visible slice of this site, PHA is going to isolate them. This is bad for the residents and it's bad for the surrounding community. Ever since we learned this truth, the 21 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 citizens of East Falls have worked franticly to salvage the development PHA had committed to build. Last November 20th -- that's precisely 364 days ago -- members of the East Falls community, including residents of Schuylkill Falls, packed an emergency meeting at which the newly revealed information was discussed. At the first meeting -- at this meeting, rather, the first speaker was Ms. Johnakin, President of the Schuylkill Falls Tenant Association. She complained bitterly about the treatment of the tenants and the many changes made without tenant input or knowledge. " At the end of the meetings, the community unanimous adopted a resolution. A key paragraph of that resolution remains in effect and states the following: "East Falls Community Council remains willing to engage in constructive, meaningful negotiations with the developer and PHA toward the goal of achieving a Schuylkill Falls development consistent with the community plan presented by PHA and the developer in 1997; that is, a mixed-income development which would integrate self-sufficient 22 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. " In response to this resolution, Chairman Edward Rendell of PHA convened a series of meetings starting in early January of this year. He had hoped that the various parties -- PHA, the developer, the tenants, and the wider community -- could reach some understanding that would improve the situation. These meetings were inconclusive at best. Finally, we were down to our last resort. In early July, we filed suit in Federal Court. 8 million in federal HOPE VI funds, and according to the plan supported by the tenants and most of the community. In July -- later in July, on very short notice, Mr. Rendell asked the Community Council to call an emergency meeting on a Sunday night in the 23 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 middle of the summer. Once again, there was a standing-room-only crowd. In front of that audience, Mr. Rendell repeated a statement he had made at earlier meetings. This is a great quote. " That's what Mr. Rendell said. This whole matter is disheartening; it's disheartening to me and the thousands of other people who truly love living in East Falls. We thought we had helped devise plans that would preserve the strength of our community and improve on it, but now it appears that PHA is determined to build another failed low-income housing project and repeat 50 years of blight in the Lower Falls. The Daily News took note of this a little while ago with a cartoon that appeared on the editorial page. Basically they're describing Schuylkill Falls as a sequel to another bad movie. (Mr. )
I don't know how we'll note the display of the cartoon for the record, but 24 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Josephine is very good at doing that, so somehow she'll include in the record that you showed us that. We'll try to include it as part of the record. (Scaled-down version of editorial cartoon attached hereto.)
On a policy level, why we're here, this particular development should be of great concern to the Commerce and Economic Development Committee. As I discussed earlier, the Schuylkill Falls site is one of the most visible building sites in the entire City of Philadelphia. If we build it right, we tell the commuters going by that East Falls in particular and the City of Philadelphia in general are still capable of building an attractive new residential community. With 50 percent market-rate housing, should we find it possible? It will demonstrate the City's commitment to market-rate housing and to those who would live in it. Thousands of people will see this every day. However, if PHA proceeds as it seems determined, then to the message will be that Philadelphia settles for the mediocre and that Philadelphia can't follow through on the Mayor's 25 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 stated aim to encourage market-rate housing in the City. Within East Falls specifically, the development, as currently planned, will leave us where we started: With an isolated pocket of low-income people physically and socially cut off from the rest of East Falls. Any business that would consider locating on the Ridge Avenue commercial strip will think twice or three times about that location. Middle-income families considering locating in the Lower Falls will also think twice or three times, and they may think that it makes more sense to flee to New Jersey. Mayor Street has said that a key to the continued vitality of the City is to arrest and reverse the flight of middle-class families from the City. If this development is built according to the plans that PHA set forth in 1997, it will bring 150 such families to the site. Unfortunately, given the current plans, contracts, and funding, it can't happen. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that any City funds or borrowing capacity used to support the current plans for Schuylkill Falls will be 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 wasted. There is no reason for any taxpayer of this city to contribute towards social and economic isolation, design mediocrity, and blight, particularly when plans were in place and funded to build something great. I've been arguing that the Schuylkill Falls site is one of the most visible sites in the City. I think this site is every bit as prominent as Penn's Landing or Eighth and Market. The City made ambitious plans for both of those sites, as you know, but actually building those developments has stalled over financing and planning issues. In those cases, the City has had the discipline to hold the developers to their promises. Does this City Council, does this committee have the will and foresight to hold PHA to its promises? As a Falser and a Philadelphian, I urge you and your colleagues on City Council to do whatever it takes to bring PHA to its senses. Neither PHA nor the City as a whole should settle for mediocrity, neither PHA nor the City should act out of expedience. Our shared desire should be very simple: Build Schuylkill Falls as promised in 1997. In other words, build it right. Build it right. 27 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Thank you for your time and attention. (Applause.)
I'm sure there will be a number of questions, but my thought is, at least at the moment, to get through the testimony of the panel that we have and not interrupt. Two things. One, Mr. Lampert, do I understand that you have copies of your testimony?
Okay, we'll have the sergeant-at-arms get that for you. And next, if we can hear from Ms. Johnakin, I'd appreciate it.
Good morning. I'm Trellie Johnakin, a representative of Schuylkill Falls residents in public housing. I didn't bring a copy; I lived it, I experienced it, and I know within my heart it was given me to service the residents of Schuylkill Falls when in came about in Schuylkill Falls over 15 years ago, prior to my family being there. Unfortunately, the representatives they had, they did not understand -- they did not understand us being the residents that they had right. They didn't understand living under those deplorable 28 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 conditions that they were able to speak out on personal rights. I went to meetings consistently in that community where if the residents were to speak out, they were put out. And I took a stand within my heart, this was not the way to do residents, human beings that's living in public housing. Prior to -- my goal was to teach them how to have an election; they didn't understand that. They would have meetings in and out, and they had elections -- I was there three years and wasn't even invited, and I know I was there consistently. Where my vote came in at? I felt some kind of way about that. So what I did was just took a stand on the requirements for residents to become a Resident Council, you had to get a petition of signatures, 18 you had to have a nominating committee, and also you 19 had to be in good status with the Housing Authority 20 as being a resident on the lease. And I did those 21 necessary things. And I went and took money out of 22 my pocket to take residents to ask them, Don't you 23 know, nobody's not telling you anything? They 24 making decisions about you, they just going over 25 your head doing things. You should be involved. 29 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 And my vice president, praise God today, Miss Doris Wood, was on the corner, servicing the children in school for years. She was the one that sat in 5 the audience too. If she were to speak out, she 6 would be to put out. That was the (indiscernible) 7 leadership. 8 So we were teaching residents how to have 9 the election and they have a right to choose who 10 they want to represent them on the grounds of -- to 11 educate them how public housing functions. That was 12 the stand that, praise God, he as given me, a gift 13 and a privilege to service the residents. 14 And we took that stand and we've been 15 strong. There has been a lot of animosity in that community and broken hearts and spirits as neighbors with neighbors. Prior to that, we took the initiative to go to the churches in the community and reach out and work in that direction. Prior to that with the churches in the community, they wasn't getting along with one another. We banned together as a team with the manager of the Housing Authority and the Resident Council and the head of household to solve its differences. In East Falls, they could call the Resident Council after being duly elected. 30 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Prior to that, we also came together with the love -- I mean love, pure genuine love in East Falls community. Why? Because we work independently with all of the churches in the community, we work independently with the schools around the surrounding community, not knowing God was grooming us for this process the way we at now, with the love that we had in that community coming together. HOPE VI came towards us. We lived in the experience of being a diverse community. We took away the words of "project, poverty, poor" and put it out. Then we came to live in a development, and the residents were developing. In the context of that development, we created a health center out of two rooms, one room 17 to start with, consistently for one year, and the independent foundation gave 'em $180,000 to create a health center on that site. That site was just like skeleton boards; it wasn't anything there.
Schuylkill wasn't even on the map to be recognized as residential individuals living in the community. And we constantly work with the schools and the churches in the surrounding community, which led us to the point of the Hope VI Program with 31 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 love, charrettes, schematic planning, churches eating dinner together, making a difference to beautify that community. Oh, lo and behold, in 1998, things started really changing. They had changed executive directors, and unfortunately, the executive director that they had did not give the Resident Council the respect that they deserved of the works that had been done there in that community to be out of 42 housing developments to be recognized of human growth right there in that community, and that started with educating residents. Residents had to be educated to be transitioned to public housing. We started way back in '96 to where we are now with the HOPE program. And residents had to learn how to pay they rent on time and be accountable for that, and they had to learn not to tear but to fix up and how we could do certain things. Residents of Schuylkill Falls have been educated and prepared to look forward to this hopeless program that's coming forth. Okay, prior to that, the background of the HOPE Program, home ownership for people everywhere, to make that a diverse community, the first party we 32 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 had to deal with was contact the top individuals in the City of Philadelphia, and we all came together collectively with a workshop from the City of Commerce [sic} on down. We all worked and we strategized how can we, you know, get extra dollars in reference to partnership with those outside of the Housing Authority to make this HOPE program work. After we put that together, there was a ad posted as far as whomever wanted the job. There was six individuals that applied for this job. There was a committee put together (indiscernible) for our residential people in the community from the churches on down to sit on that committee to hear the proposals that come through for Schuylkill Falls. And during that interview, we knew what we was looking for -- (indiscernible), a sound construction, like Mr. Lampert said. " But we looked for all of that in the context of that. And if you were late, you couldn't participate. If you was absent, you was out. Prior to that, when we went forth with 33 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 that interview and the ranks of those six proposals that was put in, the majority ruled for enterprise (indiscernible), even though (indiscernible) was on the lease, but they didn't come in the first, second, or third place. The second one was what the residents wanted, Beacon, 'cause they showed a lot of concern for human growth, but the majority ruled. Unfortunately, in '98, when the executive director came, he didn't give us the opportunity to go back to the table to see whom we selected or to see how the selection process went forth. He made a telephone call and gave four of those individuals {indiscernible), three of them was on that list and made his suggestion from there. And that's how, unfortunately, disrespectfully we wind up with Penrose. But we still focussed; no matter what, we still focussed in giving the executive director the courtesy that he deserves to the point of building our community. But was we all in agreeance [sic] that we know? No, we did not know. And then prior to that, he met with us in '98. He announced to us that the was the plans were, that he was going to stick to that. And, Councilman, you chaired that 34 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 meeting. That was really devastating. The residents that was there, unfortunately, was relocated for phase one. That led us all the way to phase one.
And after phase one was contemplated, mind you, we waited two years for that, after phase one was going to be completed, the residents at the top of the hill were to move in those units. And I always told the residents at meetings if they meet the requirement to come back with the change of public housing (indiscernible) for the 21st century, there have been new changes. And then prior to that, the residents, unfortunately, were, like, throwed off the site in phase one; I mean throwed off. As an example, we had a blind man move into a house that did not have the (indiscernible) of handicap accessible. I had to get him out of there. As residents, the policy were to relocate residents to a better atmosphere, not a concentrated area, in order for them to turn back, to leave something better and come back to something better. Unfortunately, during that time in '98, there were a lot of deplorable scattered sites 35 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 throughout the City that in the meantime, the executive director was fixing up for our residents to be just dumped in there. Now, mind you, we just told you how beautiful our community was with just love of human growth, and our residents really suffered; I mean, they suffered. We're still getting them out of those deplorable places. In phase two, we thought the job was going to be in phase two. If you're interested, I have minutes that went to the board and asked them to discuss certain matters about Penrose, and things were moving too fast with the plans and everything. They overlooked that. 24CFR964 states that HUD says you must, you must, have tenant participation. They just went on and done whatever they wanted to do, and I thank God for being here today to tell you what was done. And up the hill, unfortunately, when I was moving out of phase one, they say you move out and you move back. That's the responsibility of the Housing Authority. They moved me out and up. I signed the relocation agreement. And that every resident was supposed to receive that before they moved. (Indiscernible) they just wanted to throw it 36 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 out. They didn't sign anything. It took us to contract the Congress to contact PHA to see what they were doing as far as the rights of the residents for relocation. When I moved up the hill, unfortunately, my house was arsoned [sic] -- I want that to go on record. Then when I moved up the hill, I unfortunately had to move out of there. They took me to court three times.
Ms. Johnakin, I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. Could you say what you said again? What happened to your house?
Yes, in the broad daylight. This is the fifth manager that came through PHA. Yes, my house was arsoned. PHA didn't compensate me for anything. Mr. Greene told me to talk to the risk manager, and it was like a conversation when you talk to people at PHA. They listen; they don't act, they don't hear. Then when I moved up the hill -- now, mind you, Mr. Greene say he was going to keep the plans 37 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 like they are, so that meant they was going to do phase one, and the rest of them was going to move out, and I felt as though they was led astray. And also, they had a National Tenants Association in Philadelphia, came and got the same plans Mr. Lampert was speaking upon and didn't even invite the Council there. He come to Philadelphia and don't even know the Council, didn't even communicate with the Council, but he had (indiscernible) and get the plans to talk about Schuylkill Falls, as hard as we worked in that community.
Sent the employees from PHA to go to the national conference that was here in Philadelphia to get the design of plans about Schuylkill and didn't even invite the Resident Council there.
And then prior to that, I had to be relocated. I went to the board, I got the minutes to prove my point of speaking to them and asking them to discuss with us and the 24CFR903, 38 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 which gives the only resident that we had was sitting on that board who was Nellie Reynolds, our commissioner, a opportunity to speak with us. Yet you realize when Penrose came about -- it's documented in the Daily News, February the 16th. The Mayor now, whom received $10,000, was campaigning all along (indiscernible), but he received $4,000 from Rosenthal, and then the next day, the Housing Authority passed a resolution on February the 17, 2000 for Penrose to get this job. And then, you know, (indiscernible) said residents are really going through a headache, and I know that, 'cause I'm going to say it again, God sent me to do this for my people. Well, they moved us, then they come back and tell us that they had to move us out prior to Monday. Well, wait a minute, you done threw the developers out that was chosen. Evidently, you negotiated a deal 'cause you got to pay them. And where is the money coming in? There was no phase two or phase one. It become a phase two, phase one, and phase three. And then so many things has happened to us. Prior to the first proposal, there was a pool 39 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 and the City consolidation plan with Recreation was going to help us towards that pool. They gave us all kinds of conversations that they didn't have enough for the pool. That wasn't fair to the residents. This was their dream, this was their dream. It was everybody's vision for the community once that dream hopefully was going to be completed. They was going to have the empty nesters, which was -- we looked for the elderly in the community to at least be 55 and over to service that community, to be able to just relax and no grandchildren and just go on and enjoy they lives out. Unfortunately, some residents had died under stress right there at that community. Then I was relocated, and, unfortunately, like I said, they took me to court, I went to court. I had to go for representing the residents to let them know no matter what, you could fight back harder, but you have to show up at court, 'cause this will go on your record. And unfortunately, they wasn't there. We had one Caucasian in our community. Unfortunately, she didn't show up at court. She got better treatment, when we all residents, when we all 40 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 should have got the same amount of treatment that had to come to the Council to get more better treatment. We work together jointly like that, and it really hurts to have residents be recycled around this whole city and auction your whole development off without working together. Okay, so I'm going to sum it up to this point. I had to be relocated, like I said, from up the hill. Now, prior to Penrose being there on that property and grading it, we have -- our office has been vandalized. It states in HUD rules and regulations that the PHA is held accountable of giving the Resident Council an area to work from, you know. I mean, it was -- some wonderful gifts came out just getting started with the HOPE Program for the community. We created The Fallser, they created the CDC, things that wasn't there, and they dreamed it. We created a master plan for our community, you know. And we want this to work, and it can work, but now it s bricks and mortar. 5, and all of a sudden, they 60 and 70 41 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 and then across the City 35,000, 40,000, where do you draw the line at for those that work for no 4 charge and from they heart to make that community the way it is now. Off the back of us, everybody getting paid off the back of us. When the first proposal went in, it was $40 million. East Falls did support us. I'll support you to too if you going to change my community, I want to be there.
For $26 million East Falls was supposed to make a commitment to us. We don't have a commitment. We have a lot of bickering now for dollar bills off the back of the residents that was there. We're number one and we should be recognized to that point. I rest my case right now.
My thanks to Councilman Nutter for convening this hearing. My name is Carolyn Sutton. I am President of the East Falls Development Corporation and a 42 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 life-long resident of various Philadelphia neighborhoods, including as a homeowner in East 4 Falls. 5 Richard Lampert has done a wonderful job 6 of outlining the details of what has transpired 7 regarding redevelopment of the Schuylkill Falls site 8 over the past four or five years. I am here to add 9 my voice to his and the many others who have 10 expressed their unwillingness to accept any less 11 than the mixed-income neighborhood development that 12 East Falls promised more than four years ago. 13 At least one application to HUD for HOPE 14 VI funding had been denied when I first got involved 15 in the Schuylkill Falls redevelopment. " He told us that Essex Integral, the original development, with input from all people, will submit a finished application to HUD on 8/18/97. Various community groups wrote letters of support for a new vision for affordable housing in Philadelphia. 43 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Was that naive, given that no final documents were available for us to review? The 1997 application addressed provisions for monthly Schuylkill Falls Task Force meetings, a vehicle instituted by HUD to keep the community informed and receive their input on the development's progress and direction. Was it wrong for me to trust that this was part of the involvement of the whole community that John White promised? If so, then many of us from all over East Falls wasted lots of our precious time going to meetings, asking lots of questions, and getting less than accurate or honest answers. We asked the same questions we asked at the original charrettes: Will market-rate home ownership units be built first? Will the various housing types be mixed around the site? Will the present residents be allowed to remain on the site during phase one of the construction? "Yes" was always the answer. When will self-sufficiency programs begin? It can't happen until the master development agreement is signed, we were told. When will that happen? Always the answer was something like: Very 44 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 soon, end of the month, we're working out the last couple of issues. Were we wrong to trust in the veracity of those answers? If so, then most of us working on the commercial revitalization planning and rezoning of Ridge Avenue should have questioned the validity of information that resulted in the Schuylkill Falls site by the development team was proceeding via the same process at the same time. Ridge Avenue was once the main route from the City to the country. It once was home to some of Philadelphia's most beautiful and productive real estate. Is it wrong for me to envision Ridge Avenue in East Falls leading the way to a newly revitalized commercial district that runs from Center City through many of Philadelphia's most impoverished neighborhoods, providing economic development opportunities for the folks who live nearby? The mixed-income blend of housing and street-front retail along Ridge that we were promised is critical to this vision. Imagine our surprise when the Schuylkill Falls developers came to us at the 11th hour back in November of 1999, requesting more than 160 variance 45 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 so they could pull permits and not jeopardize their tax credit financing from PHFA. Imagine how we felt once again when the buck was passed to the community to rescue the community, with no real definition of what really is to come. The light bulb had been flickering for most of us for sometime; now it was burning bright. Most of what we had been hearing over the past two and a half years was nothing more than smoke and mirrors to disguise the slippage that was occurring in the plan for redeveloping Schuylkill Falls.
Were we wrong to say, Stop, let's make sure we're getting the development we were promised? If not, we ask only that we go back to the drawing board and build it right. This site and a potential remedy for the housing shortages that have been documented as one reason for the flight of our tax base to the suburbs are too important to waste. Mayor Street has referenced this problem on numerous occasions and in his recent talks about neighborhood revitalization. I remember quite vividly newspaper coverage of his comments regarding the lack of adequate affordable market-rate housing for his daughter and son-in-law, 46 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 who he would like to see remain in Philadelphia. Would true market-rate housing mixed with affordable housing for lower-income residents on the Schuylkill falls site appeal to them? One would certainly hope so. It would appeal to me, and I am a middle-income resident of Philadelphia. We were promised that this was the new model of HOPE VI; that's what we were supporting in 1997 and still support today. Bad choices were made in the '50s. East Falls and the City have been paying and paying and paying ever since. Where's it written that one bad decision must be followed in perpetuity by others? We simply must right the wrong that has been done and put this site back in the plus column for the City of Philadelphia. Thank you again to Councilman Nutter and Council President Verna for making this hearing possible.
Now, let me start by asking a couple of questions of some of my colleagues -- excuse me, I'm sorry. Let me not ask 47 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 any questions and let Julie Camburn give her testimony.
Thank you so much for allowing us this opportunity. My name is Julie Camburn. I'm the President the East Falls Business Association, a 26-year resident of the community, a 20-year-plus business owner; and since 1994, the publisher and editor of our community newspaper, The Fallser. What I'm giving to you today in the form of testimony are some of the comments which have come through articles not only written by myself and Mr. Lampert in monthly updates to the community concerning Schuylkill Falls but those which have been put forward by PHA through its communication specialist.
Miss Camburn, I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. Do you have written testimony?
Let me give it to you 48 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 afterwards. (Copy of Ms. Camburn's testimony not received by stenographer for attachment hereto.)
The first notice the community, the greater community, was given concerning Schuylkill Falls was in March of 1996 when then-Executive Director John White came to the community and announced at a Community Council meeting that the towers at Schuylkill Falls, long abandoned, were to be demolished. " Additional plans were going to be to include developing a commercial strip along Ridge Avenue with mixed-income residency, home ownership, and tenant management. That was in April 1996. In October, The Fallser -- The Fallser is our community newspaper. For those who are unfamiliar with it, it comes out monthly and it is distributed free of charge to every residence within 49 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 the community, some 5,000 residences, which constitutes about or 12,000 individuals. It's 4 also available to have an interest in the community 5 and come through the community through local 6 businesses and retail outlets. ) of PHA Information 9 Services in which she states that the execution of 10 the Hope VI Program requires, among other things, an 11 extensive communities input process as well as the formulation of plans that reflect our commitment to address a host of other economic and social issues, according to Mr. White. It also includes an enhancement of a mixed-income community. An op-ed written in the Philadelphia Daily News in October 1996 states that the Schuylkill Falls rehab plan includes a mixed-income townhouse community. It's a constant reference to a mixed-income. ), who was at that time urban planner and is now -- well, he's still with the State's Planning Commission. He says, "The HOPE VI Program centers around the demolition of public 50 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 housing units to make way for self-staining economic development for the entire community. The focus starts with the public housing site where development needs to be redirected in order to create employment opportunities and therefore begin the community rebuilding process. In order to meet the goals of self-sufficiency for the residents of the community, a fundamental change in direction is needed. " This is in reference to the need for the community, the new community, to reflect and help to develop the corridor adjacent to it into Schuylkill Falls. " If you'll recall, the first round had been denied. " 51 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 In November 1997, a front-page article 3 cites that according to information received from PHA, the new site will comprise 300 housing units: 150 houses slated for home ownership, to include 83 for sale at market rate under 100,000, on a 7 three- to five-year lease purchase plan, and 42 for 8 public housing residents to buy, working families 9 earning upwards of $12,000. The 150 rental units 10 will include 67 at market rate, not subsidized; 33 11 for public housing families; and 50 for 12 empty-nesters in public housing. 13 In February 1998, we have a statement that 14 there was at the Community Council's probably 15 January meeting a lengthy decision on an update, and 16 Fred Pernell, then-Acting Executive Director of PHA, 17 stated that the relationship among PHA enterprise 18 and eventual owners of fee-simple ownership of house 19 and lot subject to mortgage houses is still unclear. 20 Now, this was after they had submitted a plan which 21 was supposed to be complete. 22 In May of 1998, The Fallser reports a 23 breakdown of rental units and ownership 24 opportunities. I won't go into them; obviously, 25 we've been through them before 52 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 In August 1998, according to Robin Leary from PHA -- I think Robin was in communications, I'm a little uncertain of her position at the time. All right, the redevelopment project is designed to transform Schuylkill Falls into a newly-configured fully integrated community of single and multifamily public and market-rate housing, with enhancements for retail and commercial businesses.
The new community would also be less dense and present new opportunities for residents to gain economic self-sufficiency through education, training, and employment. You don't want me to read the next one; it's on the front page of the January 1999 Fallser, which delineates some problems. The facts to digest: The two high-rises were demolished, the homes above the railroad have an unobstructed view for the first time in about 50 years, and PHA entered into negotiations with the developer, but the three interested community groups were not included in the negotiation process. The developer -- this time still Enterprise -- held charrettes to invite the community and charrettes were termed "charades" by 53 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 many East Falls residents. Preliminary work has bee done on site -- that was demolition of phase one units. A final contract is yet to be signed, and no 5 money has been paid out. PHA has a new executive director, and both the enterprise of Enterprise Corp. and its project manager have left the company. The new executive director, Carl Greene, is not happy with either the contract or the developer, and the predevelopment contract includes demolition, relocation of tenants, and solutions to road surfacing and elevation problems. The plans submitted to HUD for federal funding do not show access to or from Schoolhouse Lane, and the City of Philadelphia Streets Department refuses to sign off. Schuylkill Falls residents wishing to remain on site during phase one construction were promised that by John White's administration. All Schuylkill Falls residents have been notified that they must vacate premises by spring '99 by Carl Greene's administration. An extension to July '99 date for children to finish term in their respective schools had been requested. In May of 1999, Philadelphia Housing Authority announced on April 1st that talks with the 54 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Schuylkill Falls developer have resumed. It was only a few days before that PHA acknowledged that it had ended negotiations because the developers wouldn't sign a predevelopment agreement. This is -- it's just continuous. I'm skipping over a lot of articles. This one is the zoning issues which were considered. This is the agreement drawn up between the community and the developer, who was still at that time Enterprise. And then business as usual. Then it goes into talking about an article 13 on value engineering. Value engineering, so important, instead of having what was determined to be good for the community all around. They're going to value engineer it to death. I'm not even going to read it. It's just -- it just goes on and on. These are copies of all articles which have appeared in our newspaper, a reprint from the Philadelphia Daily News, articles, a I say, which have come through from others. This year alone, I don't know how many front-page articles we've had. " This is one of the critical things 55 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. " We've had public demonstrations -- there are signs back here. If somebody will hold it up, it's this one here. Schuylkill Falls issues. The community is joined, united. Market-rate housing at least 50 percent. Home ownership, at least 50 percent. Integration, not segregation. Build it right. And so it goes on. We try to keep our community informed, the community is supportive. Walk the walk. Community leaders schedule another Schuylkill Falls demonstration. Three little words: Build it right Thank you for your time.
Let me ask a couple questions, and the one challenge for today will certainly be, given the gravity issues in front of us, is to try to get as many people on as possible. And, you know, naturally that we need to hear from PHA as well as the developer, or developers. 56 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Let me first thank the panel for their testimony. Let me ask Ms. Johnakin: With regard to tenant-related issues, and there's been a lot of discussion and, I think, a little bit of confusion around the issue of self-sufficiency. Can you tell us a little bit about that, what is going on with that, or what is not going on with that, or give us some sense of an update with regard to that particular component of this proposal?
The self-sufficiency component of the whole program is the most valuable point as far as the human growth in residents that live in public housing. Unfortunately, for a long period of time, they have never been offered the opportunity from the housing development of self-improvement and betterment and education. And it's the whole family that I am concerned about. We as neighbors, Resources of human development, have lived in our community, and they were wonderful neighbors. I mean, they was participating and giving us help where mostly needed. They are a $70 million corporation and have 30 entities up under them and have our T's crossed 57 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 and our I's dotted. And we looked forward to them in '98 to have service or make a effort to help the residents. But unfortunately, everybody going to get to the table now about the money and the residents are being left out. Now, that took two years, and we didn't receive no service, and still, they came in as partners. Okay, prior to that, they was on the site, they needed in-client services to the office and things that they needed to function out -- you know, computers and things of that nature. We only received, like, three months of service from Resources. They had to put everything together as far as residents. And it's such a hindrance because we know that the government, looking at those that's involved with TANF, temporary aid needed for families, but we -- I looked at the whole family, you know, 'cause there's hidden potentials within every human being. We worked towards that, and then unfortunately, when the new developers came about, it was now another social added component, and they brought it to the attention of the East Falls Council and the residents or individuals that they 58 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 were making the transition. And that was held with Resources, PHA, and UniPenn. They didn't even invite the Council there, not knowing that the Council wouldn't shop for Resources. But during the meantime, the Council still has to stay focussed, don't become distracted, and build in its self-sufficiency order for residents. And what we had done, praise God, independently, we had parenting classes on the site, we had pharmacy and phlebotomy on the site for residents under previous (indiscernible). We also had being your own boss, giving you educational skills, how to incorporate, how to become entrepreneurs. They went through that whole training. And also we looked for with the self-sufficiency component to have case management for every household and where they needs were and the follow-up flow chart for those needs for the residents -- even day care, transportation back and forth (indiscernible). At the time, we had 15 providers during 1998 that people in our surrounding community (indiscernible) and near and afar, King of Prussia, 250 jobs. And unfortunately, those jobs disappeared 59 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 through Resources, I believe, because they prolonged the time to help the residents. We had transportation and everything for 'em. So with the transition to UniPenn now that we at Universal and they had MLK under them, and it's a focus of what, I guess, MLK doing, but every HOPE program is unique not to become a replica of what's going on here in Philadelphia. And on the needs of the residents, the Resident Council is still working diligently with UniPenn to put things in focus for the needs of the family and as for self-sufficiency.
Let me ask you this question: As of this moment, are all of -- as best you know and understand, are all of the former residents of Schuylkill Falls who -- I know there was -- I mean, there was a date, or at some point in time, it became clear that this was the universe of residents --
-- after this application. And all of those residents, all of the people -- this is my understanding and if I'm wrong, you'll correct me. 60 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Everyone who was considered a resident at a certain date was then supposed to, as a part of this proposal, to receive self-sufficiency support services, whether they were still on the site or if they were relocated. That's my understanding. So biased on that, if that is correct, can you tell us today whether all of those residents -- because obviously now, everyone is off of the site. Are all of those residents receiving self-sufficiency support services presently?
No. Prior to '88, when Eleanor Baker came from HUD and asked the Housing Authority to release self-sufficiency funds for the residents, it took two years prior to the Housing Authority doing business with Resources to make a contract in order to do that. They had not done that. Now, prior to 184 residents whom had been contacted under Resources prior to going to UniPenn with that amount and an amount of services surrendered [sic] to the residents, we going backwards instead of forward. UniPenn, unfortunately, contacted near 30-some residents, but we still working hard as the Council to keep the 61 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 momentum going of the residents. No , they have not been serviced like they supposed to be serviced. And when you working for people, you want to take the experiences of those who have worked it and have documentation how it's being worked, they should listen. They don't want to listen and, you know, they take professionalism and titles to their advantages over residents. And that's not right.
Okay. Let me ask one other question -- and I certainly don't mean to rush everyone, and if we have to reconvene, we will certainly do that. This has obviously been going on for a long period of time. A whole lot of documents, a whole lot of paper could appear to be and is a very complicated matter. On the other hand, as we've heard the testimony, I'm left with the impression that there are some certain set things that everyone, I think, would like to see that kind of crystallize what this is all about. And whether it was through the charrette process, other meetings, Task Force, promises made, whether they were kept, not kept or whatever, can 62 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 you boil down for us, I guess, some of the fundamental elements, some of the -- I mean the kind of goals that you have for this development in, I guess, a compact kind of fashion, you want to see X, you want to see Y, you want to see Z, and those are the things, and then obviously all of the complications that are entailed to get those things, but I need you to tell us for this record what it is that you would like to see going forward.
Prior to the responsibility of the Housing Authority, it was their responsibility under the HUD rules and regulations to track the residents. Unfortunately, when Resources came in, the residents side of confidentiality left. So where that hinders UniPenn, as far as getting information, to have them to start all over, you know, to get it. And then there wasn't like a contract, you know, and agreement there at that point. It was $140,000 released to start the paperwork. Now, where we at now, maybe you could help me 'cause my residents are recycled (indiscernible) 63 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 still in housing developments in the city.
Going forward, what is it you would like to see at the site, Ms. Johnakin or Mr. Lampert or anybody else?
Well, let me take one stab at it. I think the really essential baseline is what we in the community call 50/50, 50/50. Basically --
Yeah, it is indeed. 50 percent market rate, 50 percent subsidized for low income; 50 percent home ownership, 50 percent rental. And of the home ownership, roughly 50 percent market-rate, 50 percent subsidized. Of the rentals, 50 percent market rate, 50 percent subsidized. Two, market rate means market rate. It's in the HUD regulations, it's in the dictionary. You know what market rate means, I know what market rate means. We have occasionally gotten unintelligible jibberish from the developer and from PHA as to what 64 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 market rate means. Market rate means a knowledgeable buyer buying from a knowledgeable seller, with no subsidies in either direction. That's market rate. The third point is mixture on the site. And then the fourth point is, if you will, mixture of marketing.
I'm sorry, let's try to keep this record as clear as possible. The third point is mixture on site? What do you mean by that?
Right, interspersal of income levels, interspersal of whether they're owned or rented.
Yes, yes/ And then the fourth point which follows from this is that the only intelligent way to market a truly mixed-income community would be to market 65 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 simultaneously to those who would buy it at market rate and those who would be eligible for the subsidized units. They've got to be built at the same time, they've got to be marketed at the same time. So that -- that's the most simplistic pared down expression that I would come up with of what we want. As I say, we start with that slogan 50/50, 50/50 only because the mathematics of it is so intriguing, but that's what we're after.
And, again, let me -- on that particular point, let me make sure that I'm clear. Home ownership, you're saying you want 50 percent home ownership, unsubsidized and 50 percent subsidized.
And on the rental, you want 50 percent market rate and 50 percent subsidized. Is that the --
Okay, all right. The other three I understand. Yes, Ms. Johnakin.
The infrastructure as far as the houses -- you know, All the infrastructures is supposed to look alike. And it's supposed to be rentals, homeowners, and lease-purchase. And miscommunication is so bad with market rate. Ten or fifteen years -- maybe it could be more, or ten years ago I go back. The Housing Authority had deplorable property everywhere. HUD gave them the money in order to bring 'em up of the geographical areas where the properties sit at that they could ask for the rate of what those houses' wages are, you know, as far as what the price in values are. But when they say, "a market rate," I mean, you talking about residents that left public housing that, unfortunately, all the work that they done and sweat that they put in there to make it possible to even (indiscernible) to have it so high that they can't get back. Four years ago, it was offered minimum wage as far as welfare reform and things of that nature. And to get on they feet 67 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 economically, it's still rough for them to make it. So you talking about 60, $75,000, that's not being fair to the residents there, talking about marketing rate. If you going to keep it like this, if you going to keep it, let's keep it. Home ownership, first-time owners for residents, lease-purchase for residents, and low subsidy, but don't put us in one area neither 'cause you won't get away from the stigma of projects and poverty and poor, and then you wind up being out being put out 'cause you can't pay 'cause you don't know how to budget.
May I also add to the list of things that we're looking for here. The original RFP to developers called for the responses to have a substantial commercial component as part of the redevelopment of the site, and that one item is very important as a vehicle to reintegrate the Schuylkill Falls site into what's happening in the rest of the community. And we believed very -- up until the very end that the buildings along Ridge Avenue would have in them the 68 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 commercial component that was going to allow the Schuylkill Falls site to flow back down into the activity of the rest of the community for the first time in 50 years, instead of being, "That's Schuylkill Falls and this is East Falls." From the beginning, we have all -- perhaps our main reason for being so involved for so long is to make sure that these people who have been become our friends over the period of four years -- Roxanne, Doris, Trellie, Portia Harrison, Martha Hackett, Michael Bennett and the others who we've been meeting with on a regular basis, so that those people are reintegrated into our community and become part of what we're all trying to do to make Philadelphia a better place to live.
A number of the committee members have either questions or comments. So why don't we start with Councilman Ortiz.
Yeah. I'm interested because it's an opportunity of -- I've always been impressed by the view from that area. You have 69 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Boathouse Row and Center City, and those towers really represent sort of like an ugly scar to the skyline there, when they were abandoned. And become -- and the opportunity -- going back to the early, early times in terms of what we thought about public housing and integration of that into the overall makeup of a neighborhood and we went away from that, and what happened is that we ghettoize poor people and created these ghettos that really became very difficult to overcome. Schuylkill Falls represented, I think, a great opportunity to get away from the ghettoization of poverty as such and the integration into an overall economic vitality in a neighborhood and a creation of that. And this is not something that can't be lost. It's an opportunity. People keep talking about neighborhood transformation, and I think this is part of what a neighborhood transformation can be in which we have a city of different economic levels and races and ethnic groups mixing in together and creating it at the entrance. I just don't see how we can allow this opportunity to go by and not work towards that and really get it right along the way. 70 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 So I am glad that you're all here and we're having this forum, because it really clarifies for a lot of people what that area should be. It is the area you look at when you're coming into the City, and it should be the area that says "Welcome into Philadelphia." I can't agree with you more on your statements. (Applause.)
I don't know whether this is appropriate, but I wholeheartedly agree with Councilman Ortiz. And I believe that Schuylkill Falls is such a visible site and so unique, and East Falls is already such a diverse community, one of the nicest in Philadelphia, that if we do build this right, if we do make some hard choices and get this done as fully as it can be done, that Philadelphia can for the first time be leading the way in rebuilding urban communities. This is a terrific opportunity for the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you. (Applause.) 71 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Councilman Ortiz, ten years ago or more when the Schuylkill was making a difference of the drug-infested area, praise God, he came along and he walked with us, him and Jack Jones. And thank you so much for getting us to this point now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and residents and community members here, as a Councilperson who probably has the -- well, I wouldn't want to say the majority of public housing in the district, but a substantial amount of public housing in my district, I've had the pleasure and sometimes the displeasure of working with the Housing Authority and various public agencies that deal with affordable housing. And I can tell you, when I initially heard about the Schuylkill HOPE VI development and some of the goals that were set 72 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 forth, I was somewhat pessimistic in anyone's ability to achieve those goals because of the myriad of policies, guidelines, and politics associated with affordable housing. I'm a person who has had on occasion to deal with the Housing Authority when we talked about creating mixed-income communities and we talk about market-rate housing, and I've seen the numbers associated with those definitions fluctuate so much that I'm still not clear what market-rate housing is. In my mind, market-rate housing is truly that, market-rate housing. Government traditionally is not involved in market-rate housing. So to somehow think early on in this process when you talk about creating government housing with HUD's involvement, I just didn't think it was reasonable to think that that could happen, and I just think that, you know, people probably set some unrealistic goals, given the parameters of the program. I can recall development in my district early on, when we were promised by the Housing Authority that if that development were to take place, that it would be private management 'cause 73 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 there were some concerns about some of the management of the existing public housing, and we got so far down the line, and we, the City, put up about 3 or $4 million. Some of my colleagues here supported us, and once we got the funding, we were then told, Oh, the unions won't allow it, unions won't allow it. So we had to go out and come up with a creative strategy to put some new financing on the table, and now we'll end up with private management. So I think that realistically, if you're going to achieve that 50/50, 50/50 -- and Councilman Nutter, I'm not trying to increase the problem that you currently have by throwing another creative strategy on the table.
But I just think personally realistically, having been involved in this to a large detail, both as a staff person and as a Councilperson, is that I think for everyone to come out of this hole, there realistically has to be some other mechanism associated with ultimately coming up with the 50/50 mix, 'cause I don't think in its current configuration that we'll be in a 74 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 position to do that. That's just my history with this whole type of problem.
Councilman, let me say, one, I do appreciate you putting that on the record, and that's been a request of mine for some time. Unfortunately, there's been no engagement from the other side to talk about how you actually get to where you want to be; most of the discussion has been about, Well, we are where we are so we might as well go forward with it, even though no one seems to agree that it's a good thing, and left that as the end of the conversation. I'd like to extend the conversation. So your comments and your perspective is well taken and appreciated.
There's an old cliche. When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (Laughter.)
PHA has only a hammer in their tool kit. What they are is, they do public 75 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 housing. They take various kinds of subsidies, tax credits, what have you, and they build affordable housing for low-income people. Now, if you really are going to get to 50/50/50 [sic], I would respectfully suggest you're going to have to get something other than that hammer. I don't do this for a living. I suspect that there has to be private money in it, I suspect that there has to be a true public-private partnership. We've been doing a lot of these -- we've been doing a lot of these things in the City of Philadelphia. They're hard to do, they're hard to do, but what we're saying is -- and I echo what Councilman Nutter says, you know, just because the train is rolling down the track, you know, it doesn't mean that we can't slow it down or try to build a parallel track because this notion of taking the hammer and whacking away at it and throwing up public housing 'cause you know how to throw up public housing is not going to do it. And we just need more tools in that tool kit.
Thank you. Councilman DiCicco. 76 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
I was not going to ask any questions until Councilman Clarke made a statement. That kind of brings me back to a couple of years ago when I had to deal with two developments in my district. One is the Southwark, which has been rebuilt; and the other one is the MLK, which is now under construction. And it kind of sounds similar to some of the things I had to deal with at Southwark where there was, I thought, really great plan to incorporate market-rate housing with rental units. And, unfortunately, what we have at the former Southwark -- although we've changed the name and changed some of the appearance of what was once a housing development, we actually have today in terms of the tenants and the makeup of the tenants and the economic makeup of tenants is really the same thing we had before the four towers came down. We have straight-out subsidized rental, and it really -- although it looks better and people are -- the perception, I think, is that it is better, we're starting to find some of the similar problems that we had in the past are coming back to haunt us again. Just last week, I had a 77 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 conversation with some of the neighbors in the nearby community who were really excited and partnered with the former tenants of Southwark, as you have done, and it takes a lot of time to build those bridges and trust. And I think our job as government is to make sure that we don't do anything to dismantle those bridges going forward. So I would caution you and I am more than willing to work with Councilman Nutter going forward. If there's any lessons to be learned from the Southwark that we can apply to Schuylkill Falls, we -- certainly now is the time to do that. Assuming, by the way, that Councilman Nutter is still your Councilman, because we're still doing redistricting, and, Councilman Clarke, you never know, you may be driving the train shortly, but who know. But I really do think that maybe we need to share some of the experiences in my district with you, Councilman Nutter, and other people to make sure that whatever it was we did wrong there -- and I was green at the time, I'll be perfectly honest; I didn't have a clue about what was going on, although I knew it was going to be better. And I'm not 78 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 suggesting that it's worse today; it is a little bit better, but it's not really what we fully could have accomplished had it not been for some of the issues with the tax credits, and then we fell short of money and we couldn't do the market rate, and everything has to be by the way of it has to be all rental, subsidized. I mean, we had a great plan, and I don't know if this was part of what your plan was, where even on the rental properties, over a period of time, the folks who lived in those rental properties would have built up enough escrow to and the end of, I think, years to be able to decide 14 either to buy that unit or take that money and go 15 someplace else and buy. None of what has happened, none of that exists today. And it's unfortunate. Thank you.
Miss Sutton, if you can -- and you know I would never want to ask you to shorten it, but I need to get your comment, I've got to get Ms. Greenfield with at least one letter, and I've got a letter that needs to be read into the record, and then need to get the representatives from PHA up at the table as well. 79 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Go ahead.
In response to Councilman DiCicco's comments about his own experiences, I just wanted to say that our community groups have met a lot of people from other communities during this process, and we have had them come to us, some from the Southwark area, some from North Philadelphia, and some from Hawthorne, encouraging us to be the leaders of this. They felt very much that they didn't get what they felt they were going to get in the way of an improvement in the situation for Philadelphia. So we've got to get that going and get that right.
I think what Councilman DiCicco was talking about is if you create a get ghetto, it might be a new ghetto, but it still creates the same problem because it brings the same sort of mentality and psyche and vision. So old ghetto, new ghetto, it still carries the connotations that word has carried throughout our last 20, 30 years in terms of government intervention and several things. So it's a model that needs to be revisited. And by the way, I think the model that 80 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Mr. Lampert and you folks have put forward was the model in which subsidized housing was envisioned in the first place when it was originally planned, not to put it in, but to mix it into an overall community and, therefore, be able to create a vitality within all of those different neighborhoods. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. I want to thank this panel. Let me get Ms. Greenfield field up. She's got a letter, I've got a letter that needs to be read into the record, and I'll get the rest of the...
My name is Marjorie Greenfield. My friends know me as Meg. I'm the Vice President of the East Falls Community Council; I chair the zoning and land use committee. And I have been active in this process from the time the 81 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 charrettes took place. I have attended Task Force meetings. I have to admit recently I've stopped attending out of absolute disgust and dismay. During the course of my work on the zoning committee and my work on this project, I've come to know a lot of the residents, and one of the people that I have become friendly with is a former resident by name of Martha Hackett. She gave me -- and I know it was faxed to you -- a statement that she prepared and she asked me to read it, and it's explained in the statement why she can't be here.
I'll just say that I suspect that some of what she said may not go down well with some of the people here. Please don't shoot the messenger; it's her opinion This was dated yesterday, November 18, 2001.
To the best of my knowledge, this is a weapons-free area. So I think you'll okay. (Copy of Hackett letter attached hereto.)
"My name is Martha 82 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Hackett. Because of recent surgery, I am unable to attend in person, but I wanted to write my feelings about the HOPE VI plans for Schuylkill Falls. I have asked Meg Greenfield to read this because I cannot be there. "I was a resident of Schuylkill Falls for 32 years. During those years, I was very active in Schuylkill Falls and in East Falls outside Schuylkill Falls. I was a member of East Falls Community Council and served on its zoning committee. I was a part of the Tenant Selection Committee, which selected the original developer for this HOPE VI project. I was a member of the Schuylkill Falls Task Force. I attended all of the planning charrettes. "Living in East Falls for so many years, I love the community and will always feel a part of the community. After all of the hard work done on this HOPE VI project, the beliefs I had about what would be there have gone down the drain. We went to so many meetings, planning. " And I hope she's wrong there. "Approximately two years ago, in November, 83 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Portia Harrison, a Schuylkill Falls resident and Democratic Committeewoman, went to a meeting, and for the first time, heard that all of the residents had to move. For a year before that, the residents had no meetings with the Tenant Resident Council. We were being told by members of the Council that we could stay on the site during construction. "Portia went to a meeting and found out that we did have to move. Portia then offered to keep residents involved. Then the Resident Council started having meetings with the other tenants. "I believed the Council representatives who said that we didn't have to leave. Up to the end, the Tenant Council didn't tell the residents that they would have to move. At the end of 2000, we learned that we would have to be evicted. Council was being told this but didn't tell the residents. )" And I believe she means the Council. "We Tried to tell PHA that we were not being represented, but that fell on deaf ears. PHA refused to recognize that residents were not informed. It depended on the Resident Council to 84 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 provide information to us. Other residents told PHA that they didn't believe they had to go. Miss Jones, a PHA manager, was sent by PHA to Schuylkill Falls, and she said we had to leave. "PHA didn't recognize that the Resident Council was not giving us proper information. The residents complained, called PHA, but it fell on deaf ears that they were not being represented. Even after we left, the situation did not change. The residents still don't trust the information received from Tenant Council. We could trust only the information that we got from Portia, who met with PHA. "I felt I had been misled. I always passed on what I was told by the Resident Board. Many residents stayed because I thought we could stay. When I learned otherwise and I started looking around at where I could take my family, they asked, Was I leaving? They didn't have to know why. If I was leaving, that was enough for them. I said I was leaving, I felt something was wrong. About ten residents said that If Martha Hackett is going, we are going. "This resulted in my being branded as 85 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 working against the Resident Council because I was telling the truth. "The majority of the residents who come forward to speak are easily misled. PHA and HUD have refused to listen to the residents other than through the Tenant Council. They have refused to look closely at what is being done for the residents. For example, the number of people supposedly being helped to self-sufficiency, the numbers are not accurate. "Meaning no disrespect for Kenny Gamble, I am surprised that something carries such a good name is not what it is supposed to be. We were told we would receive training which was being paid for by the HOPE VI money.
" Universal expects people to go to South Philadelphia for training, people without jobs. Provision is not being made for transportation. There is low participation because residents were misled and don't believe in Universal. I have received calls from PHA asking me to get people to come, asking why residents are not participating, 86 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 and that I should let them know that they should participate or they won't be able to return to Schuylkill Falls. Some people who are out working chose not to attend Universal training. If they are working, why can't they come back without going to training? "Many residents refuse to return because of the leadership. Some residents were offered construction jobs if they would pay for the jobs. Mothers asked me why their sons were being asked to pay for jobs. HUD and PHA need to do an investigation. In the past, people have been placed in jobs intended for residents who were not residents. They got jobs the residents should have had. If PHA monitored, as it should have, this wouldn't have happened. I am surprised that Kenny Gamble and HUD and PHA have not monitored the Universal program closely. If they had, they would have found problems. "The majority of residents I have talked to and I feel HUD, Kenny Gamble and PHA have turned a deaf ear to the residents even when we tell them the people who say they are speaking on our behalf aren't representing us. That is why the 87 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 participation is so low. People are being paid to work who are not doing anything for the residents. If you want to know what's going on, contact the residents themselves, not 'the representatives' put forward. People trusted Resources; they don't trust Universal. "All of this has led many residents not to trust or participate. "We are supposed to be receiving monthly newsletters; we are not receiving them. We did receive a few which contained lies. " Mr. Totaro is from Penrose. "I feel attempts were not made to reach residents who will speak honestly. To find out how residents feel, contact the residents, not just the Council. How can you expect residents to object to something that they are not told about? "The Empty-Nester Building. From day one, there was to be a 50-unit Empty-Nester Building. Many residents looked forward to living there. We knew it couldn't be an 'empty nester' and asked for 88 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 senior citizen. Whatever the name, it was to be 50 units, 40 one-bedroom and two-bedroom. This was 4 very attractive to the older residents who loved the 5 area and didn't want to leave. 6 "It comes up quite often that upper East 7 Falls people don't want us on the site. We had 8 people at Schuylkill Falls also who were very 9 prejudiced. For the most part, people want 10 something of quality on the site. No one wants something that is that is not good. "Originally, we were told that you wouldn't be able to tell the residents without much money from where they lived. We didn't want only poor people at the bottom of the hill. We were told that it would be a financial mix, it would be everybody mixed. The only difference among the houses might be that some of them, because of site conditions, would not have basements, and that those houses would be rental, not sale. You wouldn't be able to tell from looking who was low-income and who wasn't. People weren't supposed to be segregated in groups by income. That was the HOPE VI purpose. That is what made this so attractive. I am appalled that HUD will look at this plan and say it is the 89 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 same when all of the low-income rentals will be in one place. What sold HOPE VI to us was a chance to revitalize our area. We felt that if people were mixed up, it wouldn't wind up as a low-income area no one would care about.
"How can they expect to attract people who can afford to buy homes when there is only low-income housing there? I know people who are ready to put deposits down. If I had a lot of money, I wouldn't come unless all of the houses were built together. People who want a decent place to live and were willing to buy in because people were mixed together won't come when the first thing will be low-income. "How can we veer so far from what HOPE VI said? "Personally, I am uncomfortable that Universal continued to say at every meeting that this is to be an African-American community. We understood HOPE VI was for everyone who qualified, that HOPE VI related to mixed-income. If an Asian person qualified, he could come. Personally, what Universal said made me unhappy. I expected a mixture of ethnic groups. That would be something 90 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 new and refreshing for Schuylkill Falls. "I have given Julia Chapman my phone number. Please feel free to call me at anytime. As you know, I have always been available. "Thank you. )
Thank you very much. Let me also read into the record a letter we received by fax from Ms. Portia Harrison. Portia Harrison is a Democratic committee person, 30th Ward, 19th Division, presently living in the -- I believe this is the West Philadelphia section of the City, although I could be wrong, 19119. This is dated November 16, 2001. "Dear Councilman Nutter: I'm writing to you in reference to the public hearing you'll be holding on 11/19/01. I am concerned that I was not informed but I am still involved in the HOPE VI process and I'm going to participate in the Task Force monthly meetings. I am sure it was not your intention to ignore me." Which it was not. "Councilman, I am sure you're aware of the 91 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 report by HUD in reference to their findings of the planning process, agreements, contracts, and how comprehensive services to the tenants were or were not implemented to promote self-sufficiency in adherence to the goals of the Hope VI Program. "I continue to have concerns as to how this process has been managed and how the very people, the program is to assist and support, have not been kept up to the date with a process by the way of a monthly newsletter. It is shameful how the tenants have been kept in the dark. A large majority of tenants do not trust this process due to mixed messages from the powers that 'are.' The leadership and those providing the self-sufficiency services and the developers have promoted mistrust. They have failed to keep tenants updated on information given at the Task Force meetings and meetings with PHA. A newsletter should be used to give information. "The tenants have been relocated throughout the City and the lack of information gives tenants a feel of isolation and they have no 24 control of their fate. Tenants receive flyers in the mail informing them of workshops and trainings 92 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 they cannot afford. These opportunities are supposed to made available to them by way of the funds allocated for comprehensive services. "My opinion is tenants not being informed is deliberate in order for tenants not to question the process. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Not only to give the tenants a feel of being a part of the process but to keep the process from changing in mid-stream to gratify individuals' personal agendas. "I have lived in Schuylkill Falls for over 30 years. Schuylkill Falls has been a community of caring people, and they do not deserve to be ignored or intimidated. We have had our issues and we have confronted them in spite of the lax of leadership. "The HOPE VI Program was to be a new beginning, and tenants believed in the process. I continue to hear the disappointment from tenants in the HOPE VI process, for it appears not to be conducive to the original goals and plans upon it was first proposed. To be honest, I wonder if some individual ever wanted what the tenants hoped for. "I am hopeful this hearing will raise questions. I envision by this hearing, we will get 93 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 back on track and the recommendations will be implemented by good, honest, caring management, and the concerns of the communities will be met. I do understand everyone will not get what he or she wants. If we can enforce the original plan with few changes due to money issues, maybe those heading this process can be responsible and accountable to the people, and then maybe in a couple years, the site will be made up of diverse families. "God bless you. Sincerely, "Portia L. Harrison." (Applause.)
Okay. I need to get the Housing Authority up to the table, and I've got residents who need to get up as well. Is it all three that I mentioned earlier? Is it Doris Woods, Roxanne Destout, and Prince Muhammad-El? If I can get you up to the table. I don't have any testimony from you, but if we can hear from you relatively quickly, I've still got the Authority and the developers that I need to get up, and we're starting to get a little crunched for time. So why don't you come up to the table. (Witnesses come forward.) 94 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Please identify yourself for the record. And if you'll let us know where you're presently relocated, that will be helpful.
My name is Doris Woods and I'm presently located in the Fairhill housing development.
Good afternoon. My name is Roxanne Destout, and I'm a resident of Schuylkill Falls, 17 years living in Schuylkill Falls. And I -- there are so many things that are being said today that are kind of a mixture of what's happening, what has happened. The 17 years that I lived there in Schuylkill Falls, I enjoyed it. The Schuylkill Falls community was actively involved with what I call the middle community. And I always call it the middle community because it sat 95 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 between Abbottsford and Schuylkill Falls. The church community supported us, always supported us. They were in the community the 5 years that I lived there. So there was always some 6 involvement with East Falls. 7 I've sat on different committees. I sat 8 on the Pastoral Council at St. Brigitte's Church, 9 where a lot of activities were. We attended 10 after-school programs, we attended summer sessions 11 for kids going to Bible studies. So there has been 12 a lot of participation. 13 For the 17 years I lived there, like I 14 said, I enjoyed it, but there are people that lived 15 there 30 years-plus. They are highly concerned 16 about what's going on. I don't think any of us 17 really know what's going on; we're all kind of in the dark. So when I hear this mixture, it just upsets me that decisions are made, people are making statements, and the whole story is not out. Originally, I heard that Schuylkill Falls was not built for public housing residents; it was built to facilitate military people. I also hear that it was a beautiful community, that doctors that worked at MCP Hospital lived there. So it's not the 96 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 poor place that people are saying that it is. The residents that reside there prior to it closing did a very good job. They were highly involved in the community. If they weren't, they would not want to come back to be a part of it. They never wanted to leave. They were given a lot of promises that weren't kept, and the residents are concerned. I, myself, want to move back. I was a part of the original planning process that said the residents could stay. I was relocated twice and told that I had to move. No one stayed, everyone had to leave. So I have a problem with this -- the idea that people think that the residents should not be considered. The residents were the first ones that accepted the HOPE VI, because we believed that it was going to change, it was going to make it better. But Schuylkill Falls was not a bad place to live. We enjoyed the community. I helped start the health center. I'm the person that carried the charts from the Abbottsford Health Center to create a community that built the health center. We just had a open house on October the 18th, we were a part 97 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 of that. The health center never left the community; it came back. So we as community builders love living in Schuylkill Falls and in East Falls the same way everyone else does. And we do want to come back, and we deserve the opportunity to come back. And hopefully, everyone that has a part in the decision-making understands that the residents should be allowed to come back, anyone that wants to come back. And the self-sufficiency should do a better job and the planning should come together better so that people can have this. Thank you.
I live on Tenth Street, I live on the 2400 block of Tenth Street, which is North Philadelphia.
Did I also hear the something about 11th and Cumberland?
It's the same thing, 98 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Fairhill Public Housing.
Good afternoon. My name is Prince Muhammad, and it's a pleasure to be here this afternoon to speak today. I've heard a lot of folks start this conversation off speaking about people in public housing, specifically Schuylkill Falls, dealing with ghettos and environment that needs to be revitalized. And we're here for that purpose, but I just need to explain to you, when the HOPE VI was granted and the information that was given out and the work that had to be done by the residents to transform themselves from that stigma to being even considered after being denied the $40 million the first time. It had taken a lot of work and it had taken a lot of internal work. It had taken a lot of residents being neighbors to neighbors right next door to each other. The broader picture here everyone's speaking about, but for just a few minutes, I'd like to speak at this transformation from within the residents, because I think that's more important 99 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 than anything at all. S. " When you look at that situation right there and you deal with Schuylkill Falls, I would say that Schuylkill Falls hd already had the ball rolling. Schuylkill Falls was the environment that had begun to empower themselves. I think the grandmoms and the moms and the sons had already looked at this and had foreseen that this was coming down the pike. And in that collectiveness that they had had, it was interesting because Peirce College had come up there to teach pharmacy to 13 residents. You may not say that that's a lot of residents, but out of a population of well over 300 families, to get 13 to come out and to sit in a classroom and to 100 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 complete a course, that's a lot, that's a lot. Pharmacy had residents, phlebotomy tech had 7 4 residents. This was done without any assistance 5 from the Authority. Based on their own merits, 6 based on their own reaching out, based on their own 7 communication, the residents were able to do these 8 things. 9 Home Depot, 14 residents at the start of 10 the learning process had learned to install windows, 11 install exterior doors, drywall, repairing walls. 12 All of this based around this HOPE VI notion that if 13 they knew a little bit more, they could do a little bit more, it would be more valuable, they could come back, they would have understanding. Also, through this process, we had a night out for the candidates, which Councilman Ortiz had come to, Steve Nesmith when he was running, Glen Bronson when he was running, and put on and sponsored by the residents of public housing, not looked upon as living in the ghetto or living in a bad neighborhood, but looked upon as being a part of a process in which it was made for them to participate in just like anyone else. As we would go down the list, we looked at 101 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 a security company, Century Security had to come on site, where there were well over residents 4 employed to guard and secure their own site. And 5 that's something to be said because then the HOPE 6 VI, it allows us to develop tenant-resident-owned 7 businesses. So now these residents have hands-on 8 experience, firsthand experience regarding their own 9 backyard, as you would sort of speak. That went on 10 for a period of time until that was discontinued. Asbestos and abatement, 14. Once again, we're at that number. Again, residents 13 participated in and completed this course. And that 14 was sponsored by the Housing Authority but it had still involved residents based on them having the opportunity to work onsite in the various jobs and the various areas dealing with asbestos abatement removal. So as we move on, you say, okay, now we're sending the residents' children to school and we're doing something for the adults. What are we doing for the children? And at that same time, there were the opportunities for the kids to join a swimming program that had taken up the 24 kids consistently.
And as you know, when you take kids swimming, 102 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 there's a lot of concerns dealing with them drowning, dealing with them actually knowing how to swim. The ages of the swimming program went from 3 to 18. So when you take someone's 3-year-old to the swimming pool, you better know what you're doing better and you better have the proper people watching the children. And that was all done within the Schuylkill Falls family. Now you move on to the project itself, the HOPE VI, and you say, How do we take advantage of this opportunity that's been presented to us? And Schuylkill Falls is pretty much broken down like East Falls is. You have a committee that handles the HOPE VI, you have a committee that handles the recreation, you have a committee that handles the job development, and you have a committee that deals with the relationship between PHA and the developers. Well, in this situation right here, we recognize that in the Section 3, hiring of residents on the site, a $26 million project, the Section 3 says that you have to hire over the term of the project 30 percent. Well, when you look at that money and you look at the opportunity to hire just 103 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 30 percent over the project, that is not a lot of people. So it was incumbent of us to develop, based on the HOPE VI, the tenant-resident-owned businesses which will give us the opportunity to do a number of things. It would give us the opportunity to develop a moving company to move residents who may have situations that other movers were not taking into consideration when they move a couch and something runs from up over it or when they see a item that's probably been in that area for a long time or someone who does not have great housekeeping skills who may have a lot of stuff stored away. In developing a tenant-resident-owned moving company, we were exposed to those situations, we could better service that resident; we wouldn't have to turn our head away or make comments or make statements. We could respect that situation and then further assist that resident on whatever else they may need. And --
I don't mean to interrupt your testimony, but I am, unfortunately, tremendously aware of my time situation. I do need to ask you one question, though. Just as you're 104 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 concluding, given the nature of today's hearing and kind of where things are and, to some extent, where they are not, I mean, there are no houses built yet, if you can lay out in fairly succinct terms, are there any particular things that you have an interest as a former resident in seeing at the particular site in the current context of what the plan is or what the plan was? I mean, that's our primary focus here today.
In this conclusion here of what I'd like to see, the breakdown had come with communication. We would like to see East Falls back in the mix. Communicating with Schuylkill Falls. Which you would also like to see the developers as well as the Penrose and Universal all collaborating for the best interests of the residents. Now, we would like to see the resident participation, and I remind you that the resident participation was not of its own -- non-participation was not of its own doing because they had done a considerable amount when they had nothing and then when it's perceived that they have something.
There's no excuse why 105 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 there isn't a newsletter at all, there's no excuse. If the residents themselves come to the table with half a loaf of bread and you know they need the whole loaf, then the service providers or PHA themselves should find a way to get them the whole loaf. A newsletter should just not service the residents; it should service East Falls for information as well, okay? To sum it up, we are doing the best with the least, and we aren't sure if this -- if this hearing at this time was a blessing or a curse because we would like not just letters sent but the actual people involved. This room should be filled with East Falls and Schuylkill Falls residents. Schuylkill Falls residents had a stake. They spent a lifetime in that development -- 20, 30 years is a lifetime. And if we were to say anything, we would say that the communication has to get better. We can't meet with Council on urgent needs that affect this whole project because folks are still stabilized in that community in East Falls. Folks at Schuylkill Falls have been relocated, and this 106 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 proceeding right here is devastating to them and their return. So when we look at these proceedings at this time, when they reach out and they try to confront various situations, they're usually met with a deaf ear until these hearings come up. Until then, they're encountering other things.
I understand. This is the first hearing of its sort; I can assure you it will not be the last. And I would certainly be glad to contact all of the former residents as soon as I get a list of where they all are, since they're all scattered all over the City.
That could be provided by the staff that is currently down at Universal.
Now, are you still working at Universal Community Homes, or are you still involved in the self-sufficiency process?
The staff that is down at Universal. We made attempts to look for an opportunity to move to the East Falls area but it's 107 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 been difficult to find property or available property or to even deal with the budget that will allow us to stabilize.
And where were you relocated to as a part of the closing of the development?
That's where a good portion of the Council is, resides down at Fairhill.
I understand about other people and I've got the other two folks here; I'm just trying to keep track of folks as they're coming. Where did you get relocated to?
We're all down at Fairhill. 108 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Now, Miss Woods, did you want to speak, or you're just kind of here for support?
I'm here for support, but I'd really like to say that I'm disappointed in the self-sufficiency because the people cannot buy the homes that they want to come back to. We'd like to see that 50-unit building there.
Okay. Do me a favor: Just identify yourself for the record.
I'm Doris Woods, Vice President, Schuylkill Falls Tenant Council.
That's pretty much it. They pretty much said what was needed to be said at this moment.
Yes, I was. I've lived in Schuylkill for years. 109 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
If we can have the representatives of the Housing Authority come up to the table, that would be -- the Executive Director of PHA was invited to these hearings. I'm made aware by way of a letter that I think we received on Friday that -- (Witnesses come forward.)
Why don't we get everyone identified at the table and then we'll deal with the letter. I think it's probably fairly obvious to everyone here in the room that none of these individuals are actually Carl Greene. Why don't you identify yourselves and get started.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my name is Alan Kessler; I am not Carl Greene. I'm an attorney and a partner with the law firm Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen. With me is Abbe Fletman, a partner of mine at Wolf Block; and John Estey, a partner at the Montgomery McCracken law firm. 110 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
This is an impressive array of representatives from the legal community. I am almost feeling somewhat intimidated here as the chair, and I will try to do my best to conduct this hearing, notwithstanding the fire power from the other side. Now, let me just try to understand who all is who and why do we have three attorneys at the table and who represents who and in can what capacity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, Mr. Chairman, you are so intimidating that it took three lawyers from Philadelphia to kind of counter --
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Fletman and I represent the Philadelphia Housing Authority in federal litigation filed by both East Falls Community Council and East Falls Business Association amongst some others, some individuals. And Mr. Estey is here for his wise counsel and advice, who represents Carl Greene, the Executive Director of the Housing Authority individually. 111 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Mr. Greene is no longer a party; he was a party to the litigation, but Mr. Estey continues to represent Mr. Greene in that capacity.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I'm John Estey. In addition to Mr. Greene, former Mayor Rendell was also a party to that lawsuit. I and my firm represent him as well as Mr. Greene. In August, Mr. Greene and Mr. Rendell were dismissed from the litigation. We continue to be involved to monitor the litigation on their behalf, as their dismissal was without prejudice, meaning that there is a possibility that they might be joined in the litigation at some point in the future.
Okay, all right. Now that everyone has appropriately covered themselves. Mr. Greene has sent me a letter, which I will read into the record, and then we will have some discussion about that. This is a letter dated November 16, 2001. "Dear Councilman Nutter: I am in receipt of your letter dated November 8, 2001, which I received on November 13, 2001. You requested my participation in the public hearing before the City 112 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Council Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on November 19, 2001 'to investigate the HOPE VI planning process, the 1997 HUD application, and the current development plan for the Schuylkill Falls Housing Authority site.' For the following reasons and after consultation with counsel, I regret that I will be unable to appear to testify at the hearing on the 19th. "I was unaware of the hearing until Tuesday, November 13th and already had commitments out of town on the hearing date. "More importantly, as you know, the same subject matter to be addressed at the hearing is at issue in a federal lawsuit brought by the East Falls Community Council, the East Falls Business Association, and four individuals against the Philadelphia Housing Authority, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and HUD Secretary Mel Martinez." There's a footnote at that point with reference to the fact that the individuals, former Mayor Rendell and Director Green, have been dismissed personally from that lawsuit. "Motions to dismiss the complaint in that 113 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 litigation are now pending before the court, and we do not wish to prejudice our position in the lawsuit through testimony before your committee. "Moreover, there are two other pieces of litigation concerning the Schuylkill Falls project that could be affected by these hearings: A matter now pending before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and a state court action brought by the Resident Advisory Board Incorporated and others parties against the plaintiffs in the federal litigation. "I know that PHA has provided you with substantial information concerning the Schuylkill Falls project. In particular, on or about October 5, 2001, our counsel in a six-page letter with 16 exhibits responded to your questions about the 17 funding stream for the project. In late July, we 18 provided you with a market study report by Delta 19 Associates on the feasibility of building 20 market-rate housing at the site. In addition, both 21 my counsel and I have met with you concerning the 22 project and have invited you to a number of the more 23 than eight meetings we have had with members of East 24 Falls Community Council in an attempt to resolve the 25 issues raised in the litigation. 114 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 "PHA is committed to a quality mixed-income project at Schuylkill Falls. We will be pleased to participate in any informal meetings you might convene to engage in constructive dialog with the interested parties. "I would appreciate it if you would include this letter in the official record of the November 19, 2001 hearing. In addition, I've asked PHA's counsel in the federal litigation to attend the hearing to further explain PHA's position if necessary. "Very truly yours, Carl Greene, Executive Director." (Copy of Greene letter attached hereto.)
While we're dotting I's and crossing T's, why don't I mention that the letters that were sent out were dated November 8th, they were mailed on November 8th, and everyone, to the best of my knowledge, received theirs in a timely fashion. I will not take responsibility for the untimely delivery to Mr. Green or what may have happened in the PHA mail system that may have affected his receiving the letter in a more timely 115 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 fashion. Second, this is a matter that we have discussed in the past, as well as the fact that this resolution was introduced back on April 5, 2001, and it's unfortunate if the director thought that because there had not been an immediate hearing at that time, that there would not be a subsequent hearing on this matter. I think the director, and certainly his counsel, know me well enough to know that I wouldn't have introduced it if I hadn't planned to have a hearing on it. Third, let me ask this question: Where is Mr. Greene?
Counsel, you're saying you don't know where your client is?
Mr. Chairman, I assume the leadership is either at PHA offices or elsewhere.
Okay. And did they all decline to come to the hearing as well? 116 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Well, first off, you know, we talk about dotting I's and crossing T's. I don't mean to be hypertechnical, but I think we understand the intent of the letter, but the letter was directed to the Executive Director, Carl Greene; it was not directed to PHA. And, again, I say that with due respect and I am not intending to dance around the --
Well, I didn't send it Mr. Greene at his house; I sent it to him at the agency where he works. I assume that someone else over there either sees the mail, reads the mail, or might have an inclination to say, "Oh, we got this letter, what do you think about it?" Or, "I can't go, what about you?"
Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Greene went on to say in his letter -- more importantly, I think it's important -- I think the first thing that you said indicates that we knew -- as you said, the authorization to hold hearings was in April. We're well aware -- we assumed that East Falls Community Council, East Falls Business Association was well aware that there might be hearings, or probably would be hearings at some 117 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 point; yet, they selected, they decided to institute suit some three, four, months after these hearings were authorized in Federal Court. They selected that forum, Mr. Chairman, not us. We would have preferred to continue meeting with you and with the community groups, but that kind of decision was taken out of our hands by the federal litigation. And I want to emphasize, it's not just the mere fact that suit was filed in Federal Court. Suit was filed in Federal Court. It is -- I don't remember exactly, but with over 100 allegations, 6 or 7 causes of action, it's a very lengthy complaint. We, on behalf of the Housing Authority, as Mr. Estey said, Mayor Rendell and Mr. Greene are out of the case. We filed a motion to dismiss; that's a motion seeking disposition at this stage by the federal judge. It's a very important motion, it's a very sensitive motion. And it was on that basis -- and we're not hiding behind the fact that Mr. Greene's out of town. The more important reason why he's not here is because it was our considered opinion that because of the very sensitive nature of the dispositive motion that's now pending, that he 118 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 cannot be here to answer questions.
Well, I appreciate your zealous representation of your client. At the same time, I think both myself, as the chair and as well, the rest of the members of the committee, would appreciate both a little more consideration, if not respect, from the Executive Director. I cannot control whether people seek their legal redress in whatever court that they may want. That's not within my purview. This is -- last I checked, this is still the United States of America, and anybody can sue anybody about whatever they want. If they can get past, you know, the first hurdle and get the thing stamped, they're in. At the same time, as a member of city Council, I'm not involved in the litigation. I do have a responsibility to represent my constituents, and so whether some group of people file a lawsuit or not should negatively impact my ability to not only a represent people but have a decent hearing that allows for an open exchange at least of some of the information. Many of these matters, whether people debate them or not or have a different perspective, 119 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 I mean, there are a multitude of documents that were signed relative to this. Those facts will not changed. Whether they're discussed in this Council chamber, down in Federal Court, around the corner in the Common Pleas Court, or somewhere in Harrisburg, the facts are the facts, and whatever was signed and agreed to was agreed to. Now, you know, notwithstanding the litigation, you did send me a ton of stuff over, I read the stuff, and I'm sure it will also become the subject of whatever's going down at Sixth Street, but, I mean, this is not the first time that we've had a difficulty in some level of communication with the director. I take it as a personal affront and I've not heard from him. He can put in writing all he wants about how many meetings I've been invited to. The fact of the matter is, I don't know how many meetings the Authority had with the East Falls Community Council; I was invited to one, I went to one, and to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been another once since. And my recollection is that it was actually at the offices of your firm in a conference room. I came, I participated, and haven't heard a word since. 120 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 The next thing I got was the package from Mr. Jacobs from the firm and those materials. There are other things that I've asked for that have never been received. And it appears that there is no 6 intention of ever providing that level of information so that we can get on with the process of people actually living at the site in decent housing that is comparable to what was promised back at the time that -- with every respect to you, you weren't involved in this, in any of the meetings and discussions about this particular issue. So let me just try to be very clear. One, Mr. Greene is going to come to a hearing convened by this committee at some point in time. And I know that you want to represent your client and you want to try to do a good job. Federal litigation is what it is, and to the extent that between and amongst yourselves, a half a dozen, at least, I know of my constituents who are also members of the Bar, you guys will argue till the cows come home about whether a client should be in or a client should be out. I'm not in that. But your client is going to come to a hearing here and explain, as the director of this 121 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 agency, what is going on with this development, why things are the way they are. And if the lawsuit, whatever happens with the lawsuit, where the issue goes away, one way or the other, I expect you will bring your client to a hearing.
Mr. Chairman, you said a lot of things, some of which I agree with, some of which I do not agree with. I'm sorry that you took is his non-appearance here tody as an affront, because it was not his decision. Ultimately, it was his decision, it was a decision made on the advice of counsel. So if there is anyone to blame or take an affront to, I guess it's the three of us. But, Mr. Chairman I also agree that anybody has the right to institute litigation. It's a part of what -- I mean, it's a part of what actually keeps us in business.
So the more litigation, the more, the merrier. However, we don't think it's fair to just say -- and I say this with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, that that's somebody else's problem, 122 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 that's not my country. As you know, this is a country of laws, and I think Council has a duty and an obligation to respect and understand those laws. We have a motion, as I said before, a very sensitive motion outstanding. Now, you can tell me, "That's not my problem," but it's our, and you can choose to ignore it or not ignore it, but that's our job to do, that's what we do, and we have to do what we think is right to protect our client's interests in not just an adversarial proceeding but an adversarial proceeding in Federal Court. So it's not as simple for us as it may be, with all due respect, for you as a Councilman. We have -- perhaps there is some other way -- and I do appreciate at least noting what we've offered, referring to our letter, which indicates the kinds of information we have produced. This is not -- and I wouldn't want the record, you know, to be reviewed and anybody to think that we've stonewalled; that has absolutely never been the case. We're trying to walk the fine line between, on the one hand, the federal litigation and the other litigation; and on the other hand, trying to supply information, trying to meet with people. 123 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Although you've indicated you attended one meeting with the community, there have been at least eight meetings. In fact, somebody earlier referred to --
I attended the meeting, Mr. Kessler, that I was notified about and informed of. The fact that seven meetings had taken place before then and no one thought it either necessary, important, or relevant that they let me know about them, you know, I can't attend what I don't know about. But when the notification was provided, I was there, and I fully participated from the beginning to the end. I interrupted you, go ahead.
Well, what I was about to say is perhaps I would hope that the Chair would keep open to other ways to possibly address the need for information so that we could get the Chair of this committee additional information, while at the same time attempting to protect the litigation process that's proceeding, unless, of course --
Well, let me mention one other thing to you. When you talked about whether there's been any stonewalling or not, I mean, let me just continue to make sure the record 124 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 is absolutely crystal-clear, and I think this took place before you came on in this particular capacity. It was mentioned earlier, and I'm very mindful of the fact, that when the community attempted to get certain documents and information from the Authority, I think their last resort was to file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. So, I mean, you usually don't file that kind of suit if you're getting all of the information that you want.
Mr. Chairman, can I let Miss Fletman, 'cause she was involved in that proceeding, address that?
Mr. Chairman, I was not involved before that lawsuit was brought; that was my first involvement. But since that lawsuit was brought, being the Right to Know Act, we provided box upon box of information to the community, and there was reference to us only doing it pursuant to order. That was simply not the case. There was one document, the Master Development Agreement, which was not a signed complete document. 125 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
I understand that, and I don't mean to interrupt you. The only reason I raised that is in the context, if the case is going to be, We've always been open and honest, we've shared everything anybody ever wanted, I just think it's important to at least note for the record that at some point in time, that wasn't the necessarily the philosophy, the result of which resulted in the filing of that kind of action. So, I mean, it hasn't been a complete free flow of information from the start. Maybe that's the new -- you know, maybe that's the benefit of you guys being there that information is flowing, and now, because of this other action, I'm sure you've had to truncate to some extent what you're sharing. Let me go back to the last question that I asked. You have a matter pending in Federal Court; whatever is going to happen with that is going to happen with that, and you will battle that out in a different forum. What I want to know is, when that matter is disposed of, when do you propose to bring your client to this chamber and give testimony before this committee?
Mr. Chairman, we will -- 126 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Mr. Greene is ready, willing, and able, when that matter is disposed of, to come before this committee and testify.
And what are you prepared to offer us today? Are you in a position to now take questions about the matter in front of us?
Mr. Chairman, again, because of litigation, I think what we can offer is to provide to this committee Mr. Greene's written testimony. It's going to be understood again that it's not going to -- it's not going to be as complete or specific as it -- or detailed as it might be absent the litigation. And secondly, I think we're prepared to recommend or suggest that if this committee were to forward written questions to Mr. Greene, that those questions Mr. Greene could review with counsel and respond to.
And, Mr. Chairman, let me just jump in here. This is not a case where the subject matter of your resolution is tangential to the subject matter of the litigation; they're totally consistent. I mean, the questions that 127 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 you're asking are exactly the issues that the plaintiffs have brought an action about. So that just heightens the sensitivity of giving testimony in that situation.
Well, Ms. Fletman, I think as long as we understand that the resolution 8 itself and the components of it were introduced back in April of this year -- I don't remember when the lawsuit was filed, but I am sure that you are not at the moment trying to make any connection between the resolution introduced in Council in April and the pending litigation, notwithstanding any similarities that you may read into it or the like. Are you trying to say something that you're not saying?
No, Mr. Chairman, I was not, I was not. All I was saying is that the subject matter of the questions here is exactly the subject matter of the federal lawsuit. I certainly didn't intend to suggest that there was a connection; only that that is the source of our concern in terms of having our client come and testify.
With regard to the issue of submitting questions, you know, I think the last time I sent a paper into the teacher was about 128 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 4th grade. And so I'm not going to get into sending a whole host of questions over and then we're going to have a poring over them by three expert lawyers and whoever else might be involved in this particular process. The job I do in this kind of forum is, I ask my questions. I haven't even thought of all the questions that I might have for Mr. Greene in this particular circumstance. What I want is the director and all of the pertinent people associated with PHA or any other agency that's been involved in this process, I want them here, I want them in those chairs, and I want to ask my questions directly. I'm not going to send over a list of questions and get back whatever response is legally allowable at the time.
Mr. Chairman, I didn't mean to suggest that if we were to proceed in that fashion, written testimony, written questions, that would be the end of it. What I meant to suggest is kind of an interim measure, that that's what we would suggest or recommend, an interim measure until, as you suggested, the litigation is disposed of. 129 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Well, again, that will be handled by, you know, other parties, and certainly not by myself. Let me ask this question, then. I don't necessarily know that this is either the subject of the suit, because I haven't read the suit, I'm not in the suit, but I think it is pretty much a yes or no issue. There's been a lot of discussion here this morning, for instance, about the issue of the self-sufficiency part of this HOPE VI application. Can you tell us, based on whatever knowledge or information you have, what is going on with that, who's doing what with that, and is that component working?
No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have information that I can provide you on that issue.
Okay. Do you have any information with regard to the Delta report that was done during, I believe, the course of the summer that was forwarded to me back in July?
Can you respond to any questions about it? Have you read it, have you 130 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 looked at it?
That report is part of and is a potential piece of evidence in the litigation that is ongoing. I don't think any member of this panel is prepared at this time to discuss that particular report.
Because I think the circumstances surrounding it, whatever you mean by "information," could lead to certain avenues of inquiry that would not be appropriate, given the pendency of the litigation.
Well, let me ask this question, 'cause it's mentioned in the director's letter that there are some, I guess, counter suits that may have been filed against some of the individuals who live in the neighborhood. Now, why is it that they're able to be here with us today and testify about whatever it is that they want to testify about, but on the PHA side, there's no 23 ability to say anything about anything about documents that are kind of signed, sealed, and delivered from many, many years ago that I assume 131 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 are not going to change? Can you explain that to me>
I assume they either have not consulted with their counsel or they have gotten different advice from their counsel as to what is appropriate in this forum.
Okay, all right. So what -- why don't we -- let's kind of cut to the chase. What is it that you want to share with us today other than the fact that your client can't be here today?
The willingness of Mr. Greene to -- and the Housing Authority to respond to written inquiries at this stage, and the commitment, once the federal litigation is resolved, for Mr. Greene and other members of the Housing Authority to appear before this committee and make whatever appropriation is appropriate at that juncture and to answer whatever questions might be appropriate at that juncture.
Okay, let me ask this question. Let me go back to the Delta report for a second; you've seen this report?
Do you have any reaction to the statement in the report that East Falls is an average location?
Mr. Chairman, I think what you're hearing -- we are counsel, and I appreciate your stating that maybe we've been helpful in expediting somewhat the flow of information. What we think or don't think is, with all due respect, not entirely relevant. It's the Housing Authority, you know, that is -- that is the party that's going to make things happen or not, and what it thinks about that report or doesn't think is what's relevant. And what we've tried to say is had the residents, had the community not seen fit to file 19 the federal litigation, but instead, play out the proceedings that were authorized in April, and then they weren't pleased or happy with the testimony, perhaps then filed suit, we'd be in a much better position to answer your questions. We understand you want answers, you want information. We've tried to do that in an informal 133 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 context. We can't do that, we don't believe, in a formal context.
Give me a sense of the status of this much-discussed litigation.
We have a fully briefed motion to dismiss pending before Judge DuBois of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
And do you have a sense of what's going to happen either way, or when, or is there a schedule, a timetable
There's not -- a federal judge decides when he or she decides. I mean, there's no schedule, you know --
If the judge rules against our motion, the litigation would proceed, and we 134 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 would go into discovery.
Okay. And what happens as it relates to the development while all of that is going on?
The plaintiffs did not move for a preliminary junction, so construction goes forward.
So you just keep doing whatever you want to do. (No immediate response from panelists.)
They keep constructing, consistent with the plan that's been approved by the various regulatory agencies. There is nothing at this stage, nor was there when the lawsuit was initiated, that precluded the plaintiffs from bringing a temporary restraining order motion and/or a preliminary injunction motion seeking to stop the construction at the site. They chose, for whatever reason, not to do that. Therefore, the construction is proceeding on phase one, which, as you know, is fully financed upon closing, it was in December. 135 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Why would you start it if you don't know how you're going to end it?
There are a number of factors that go into deciding what will and will not be built in phase two, contingent in part upon phase -- the completion of phase one successfully. That is a matter that is at issue in the lawsuit and the other ancillary pieces of litigation.
Okay. Do you have any anticipated -- now, you filed your motion to dismiss in August.
Correct. And then the plaintiffs responded. 136 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
So everybody's responded to what they need to respond to.
So we've got a July filing and we've got an August motion to dismiss, and everybody's fully briefed on that.
There are, in fact, two motions to dismiss. Outstanding there is a motion from the Housing Authority and a motion from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
I -- you're asking -- I'm not sufficiently versed in the difference between the two. I know that there were machines moving earth 137 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 about.
Construction generally means that something is actually built, site prep usually means something's either being taken down or earth is being moved around. Those are -- I mean --
And my answer is, I don't know the difference. With respect to what I personally viewed at the site, which is what I'm basing my answer on -- I don't know the difference -- I assume that they are engaged in site preparation.
Well, this has been very fruitful. Thank you so much. (Laughter.)
Are there representatives from the various development companies here? (Witnesses come forward.)
Mr. Chairman, Councilman 138 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 DiCicco, my name is Robert Totaro, T-O-T-A-R-O. I am Vice President of Penrose Properties. Penrose Properties has partnered with Universal Community Homes through an entity known as Penrose UCH LLC, which is the managing member of the developer entities, Schuylkill Falls Redevelopment, LLC. Thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning, or this afternoon. I would be --
Why don't we get the other gentleman identified and then we'll know who's who.
My name is Shahied Dawan, and I'm the Chief Operating Officer of Universal Community Homes.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do a variety of things, whichever you think is more useful to you. I would be happy to address the --
Do you want to spell those things or do you want to leave it to my imagination?
Either way. I would be happy 139 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 to address the provisions of the resolution, the comments that various parties testifying this morning have made, and/or respond to questions that you or other committee members may have.
Why don't we do a combination of that, although, again, to the extent that you can --
-- kind of not -- well, it's a fairly long story. If we can, you know, operate, maybe within the last year or so and not go back to the history of clock-making, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.
That's convenient for me because we have only been involved -- that is, Penrose UCH LLC -- since February of the year 2000.
We were invited by the development of record, Integral Group, in partnership with Enterprise Social Investment Corporation to compete with three other locally-based -- that is Philadelphia-based -- developers to be admitted to the partnership they 140 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 had established to act as developer.
I honestly don't recall. I believe one was Michael's Development Corporation. Another one may have been Beacon, although I believe they declined to participate.
The process was that Integral Essex circulated a RFP, if you will, a document to which they asked each prospective developer to address in written form. We did that, were subsequently contacted by representatives of Integral Essex, and negotiated an agreement by which we would be admitted as the controlling member of the developer entity.
We -- the very first thing I did was to meet with the Schuylkill Falls Resident Council leadership, even before meeting with 141 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Integral and Essex, and even before meeting with Director Carl Greene. And as a matter of fact, for the next two weeks, met seven times with the Schuylkill Falls residents to determine their needs and interest in moving the development forward.
Well, let me ask this question: From your perspective, what are the changes or the differences between the 1997 plan and the plan that you're embarking upon now?
There is more unsubsidized market-rate housing in our current plan than there was in the application itself. That's the basic difference.
There was no -- not a single unit in the HOPE VI grant application was an unsubsidized housing unit, not a single unit. And in our current proposal --
The document is very clear, and it's a shame because language is subject to interpretation, and I'm not here to argue any 142 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 particular definition of specific phrases. I have no vested interest in the original plan. We are essentially mechanics, we are implementers. We would love to see the project achieved, the interest of all of the constituencies in this development, and I think you recognize there are many, and their interests vary, and it is a difficult and delicate balancing act.
Let me make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. Are you saying that the original plan, and as we've heard from many of the people testifying today, in the concept of the 50/50, 50/50, are you saying that the original plan did not include 50 percent home ownership and 50 percent rental, 50 percent subsidized and 50 percent unsubsidized?
It did include 50 percent rental and 50 percent home ownership. However, 100 percent of the rental and home ownership -- that is, 100 percent of all the units -- were subsidized in some fashion. And I've heard some of the comments about what constitutes market rate, and it means no 25 subsidy in support of the housing. I mean, Society 143 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 Hill Towers was heavily subsidized through the urban renewal program. Every suburban development which occurs is heavily subsidized.
Are they $500? I mean, do they sell for $40,000, do they sell for $200,000? I mean, what are you talking about?
Are you saying that there is any public money in something, it is, quote/unquote, subsidized?
Okay. And do you think that the average person would consider -- oh, let's say the Rittenhouse, which was the subject of a massive tax abatement, do you consider that to be subsidized housing?
Okay. Do you think that any average, regular person walking up and down 144 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 the street would consider the Rittenhouse over at -- I don't know what the address is over there -- 210 Rittenhouse Square, that that would fit anyone's normal definition of, quote/unquote, subsidized housing, as compared to this discussion about public housing?
No, I do not. And that makes the point that the phrase has meaning to various people.
And we're dealing with programs that have specific definitions and specific limitations and specific constraints, and we have to live within those. Again, seriously, we would welcome any modification to the plan or proposal which adequately addresses the interests of all of the constituents, not one side or the other, which is financially feasible for implementation.
And which the agencies involved will approve. And that includes the PHA, the City, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, the Redevelopment Authority. 145 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, they all have a say.
I understand that. So tell me, what steps have you taken to try to make that happen?
We convened a meeting with the director of the program, the federal program
Eleanor Bacon at the time was the director of the program. We worked with her staff and with Senator Specter's staff.
I'm going to say summer of the year 2000. And we proposed converting 50 of the home ownership units to market-rate units without subsidy and without restriction on the income of the buyer.
Okay. So tell me what's happened in almost a year and a half since then. 146 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Well, that has yet to be formally approved through the official process of modifying the revitalization plan, and we have --
Do you have a formal application or a formal request to do that?
And it's been there for a year and a half, and you have no approval?
Well, now, you're working with the Housing Authority, right?
It's your project, 147 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 right?
All right, but you don't know whether they've actually made a formal request to HUD about your project?
I don't know whether a formal submission for revision to the home ownership plan has yet been made. Understand, Councilman --
Because of the continuing discussion regarding what shape and form the home ownership on this site will take, because of the pending litigation, because of the --
Don't, don't -- Mr. Totaro, don't insult me now, okay? We could have a fairly decent session here or we could really, like, get into something.
All right, okay. Because the litigation was just filed in July and you tell me you had the meeting with HUD in Senator Specter's office in July of 2000. 148 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 So tell me, before the litigation was filed, tell me what happened for that year that you guys were having these discussions.
Well, I can tell you that I convened meetings in our offices with the representatives of the East Falls Community Council, and I'm going to guess --
I'm not interested in those meetings at the moment. You said you had a meeting with HUD and Senator Specter's office, trying to get a proposed amendment, which was your idea for 50 non-subsidized for-sale houses.
What I want to know is, in a year, what happened to that request and what did you do to get to try to get to the bottom of it?
And have they said yes or no? 149 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
They have said that they're considering it, and they're taking into account all of the discussions and deliberations affecting the ultimate shape of that program.
So in the course of a year, you have not gotten a straight yes or no 8 answer to that question, which is central to what might happen at this particular site.
It is essential; however, it is part of the phase two development for which --
Yes or no? Is phase two funded? Tell me where the funding is.
It's funded from the anticipated proceeds of the sales of the housing units and subsidization through the HOPE VI Program. 150 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Is it fully funded money in hand or in the bank, similar to the funding for phase one? 'Cause you have the money for phase one, correct?
Okay, do you have the money today as speak we speak for phase two?
Well, whenever you're doing financing of market-rate or partially subsidized sales housing units, a major portion of the financing is going to come from private mortgage sources.
No, I'm asking -- you're telling me that it's funded and that the money's going to come from mortgage lenders. That means to me that you have talked to them, you've identified them, and you can tell me where the money is coming from for phase two, because you know where money is for phase one. See, in my universe, "fully funded" means identified, encumbered, available. Three elements. I think you've thought about where it would come from, you don't have it specifically identified, and it is clearly not available at the moment; is that correct?
Do I have legal access to it at the moment? If you mean that by availability, then no, it not available. Is it available in the marketplace, have we had discussion with prospective lenders? Yes, we have. Are they interested? 152 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 They're banging-down-the-door interested.
Well, if they're so interested, then what's the problem?
Because we don't have a project to close; we don't even have the infrastructure funding for the phase two, which constitutes the majority of the home ownership development at the site.
Well, you're not going to build the houses if you don't have the infrastructure, right?
Okay. So let me ask one more time: It is not fully funded; is that correct?
Thank you. Go ahead, tell me something else. What else do you want to tell us?
I think important, in view of 153 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 some of the comments, to understand that there were 714 public-housing units on that site, and even at the time of the HOPE VI grant application --
Okay. Now, when you entered the universe, how many occupied houses were there on that site? 'Cause didn't the towers have like a few hundred?
The towers were already demolished at the time of the HOPE VI grant application.
Okay, all right. So we don't really have to go back and talk about the initial creation of Schuylkill Falls and how many people lived there because there was never, ever any notion that the same number of people that were originally on the site 40 years ago were going to be on the site today, right? 154 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Okay, all right, so don't tell me about the history. Where are we now and why can't we do the kinds of things that have been discussed here this morning?
Let me finish and say that whatever the number of public housing units or residents at the site at the time of the HOPE VI grant application -- and it was several hundred -- there will be only 103 public housing units in the redeveloped site. And I think --
I want to make sure I understand your language. What you're saying is 103 public housing-eligible units, correct?
Okay, why don't we do this as an information request. The letter that I received from Mr. Jacobs at Wolf, Block, Shorr talks about one of the documents that I received which 155 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 lays out some of the elements of that 103 units that you've just discussed. Now, if you could send to me subsequent to this hearing -- he's telling me that the regulatory and operating agreement between PHA and the partnership dated December 7, 2000 provides that one-third of the 103 public housing units shall be rented to households with incomes at or below 40 percent of area-median income, provided that at least 50 percent of such households shall be at or below percent of AMI. That's one. One-third 12 shall be above 40 percent, but no higher of AMI. 13 And the remaining one-third shall be above 50 14 percent but not to exceed the tax credit limits, 15 which is 60 percent of AMI of Section 42 of the 16 Internal Revenue Code. 17 Now, what I'd like for you is to do is 18 prepare a chart showing me the breakout of the 103 19 units, the schedule that's in the letter that I 20 received, and tell me what those actual numbers are from an income standpoint. Can you do that?
And then I'd like you to do that for the rest of the units on the site. Is that 197? 156 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Okay, I'd be interested in seeing that. Now, when we talked about this report that was developed, is it your considered opinion as a developer out in the community that East Falls is an average location? Is that your perspective?
Okay. I'm sure folks from the community appreciate that perspective. What does that mean? What does "average" mean?
Well, it's means that it's not inferior and it's not outstanding.
It is not Rittenhouse Square, to use your example. It is, as they described it themselves, a well-integrated community in terms of income, social status, race and other characteristics. And it is, as a result, a very vital community. It is not, however, an outstanding real estate location. And that's what the appraiser is 157 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 assessing.
What's the range of the prices of homes over in the East Falls community?
Okay, are there many other neighborhoods in the City that have that kind of real estate market?
No. The question was not, Is this an average community within the Philadelphia market? The question is, How does an appraiser assess the quality of this real estate location? And they've concluded that it is average. That's their prerogative. You asked me if I agree with it and I've said I do.
Okay. So it's average kind of living up on a hill, almost literally part of Fairmount Park, you get the river right outside 158 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 of you, easy access to Center City or anywhere else that you want to go, and from your perspective, that's an average neighborhood?
Within the appraiser's world of definitions of rating real estate sites, I would say yes.
Well, I guess in that environment, I mean, do you think that market-rate houses don't work, and what do you think the market is over there?
I believe that there are still remaining impediments to immediate and vigorous marketing and sale of unsubsidized units at that location, but I also firmly believe that --
Do you think that's impacted at all by the fact that you propose to build almost all of the rental and a little bit of the sale first?
Correct. And we are following the prior market analyst urging that the 159 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 developer and the PHA overcome some of the stigma associated with the previous use of the site by building out high-quality rental housing at the site in order to allay --
First. In order to allay the fears and concerns of prospective buyers, particularly --
If you build the low-income first, you attract the high-income buyers; is that the concept here? (Applause.)
I mean, you know, I've never built anything, so I don't really know. So is that what you're telling me?
The site has acquired an enormous stigma. And, in fact, these kind of proceeding and a lot of other public utterances and issuances by the East Falls community regarding the terrible character of the proposed redevelopment and how it's doomed to failure and how it's totally 160 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 subsidized and totally public housing will all serve to negatively impact the prospect for marketing this site for home ownership units. So there's a --
Let me make sure I understand you. You're saying that the public discourse on this, which the essential elements of this difference of opinion is around the mix of the units, the much talked about 50/50, 50/50, is one. The fact that the units would be integrated and dispersed around the site as opposed to congregated. Your statement here is, is that the mere having of that discussion to try to make it the best possible development and site is detrimental to the future marketing of this site?
Okay, I'm sorry. I thought that that's what I heard you say.
They're not the only things, and the record will show, they're not the only things being said in the public forum.
There has been a drumbeat of allegations that what is proposed for development is 161 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 detrimental to the community, to the City, to the neighborhood, to the residents, to the government. I mean, that is not positive. That does not help to boost the image of this rebuilt community, which is so critical in the successful marketing of anything approximating market-rate housing, whether sales or rental. So even without that reinforced criticism, the actual existence of the community in its form over the past several decades, deserved or not, has created a stigma.
And unless that can be overcome -- and keep in mind, this is not, Oh, here's a site and isn't it a wonderful site, maybe above average, and we wish to redevelop it in the best possible way and let's set our minds to do that; this is a revitalization of public housing funded largely from a public housing capital grant program. So that, combined with the prior experience with the community is a -- has created a stigma that must be overcome. So if it is revitalized, is it going to be public housing as we 162 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 have known it? is it going to be ill-managed; is it going to concentrate poor people and social progress? The answer is no. But how do you convey that message except to do it?
Right, I understand that. My only sense of disagreement is what you do first and what you do simultaneous. And I guess where I'm having a little bit of difficulty is if you're trying to get away from something in particular, it seems a little weird to me that you would start with the same thing that you're trying to get away from. I don't understand that.
But it's not -- but it's not the same thing. And to the point that several --
To the point that several people made in testimony, you're not supposed to tell the difference between home ownership and sales, you're not supposed to tell the difference between upper income, middle income, lower income. That's absolutely true and that is the fact. There is no difference between the rental townhouses and the sales townhouses. There is no difference between the subsidized rental and the 163 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 non-subsidized. There is no difference between home ownership for middle income or home ownership for lower income. They are exactly the same --
Well, if there's no 6 difference between them, then tell me what the average person would think if in phase one, close to 100 of the 130 or so units that you build are all rental? I assume within that, there will be some level of a number then that would be the subsidized rental. I mean, while we're having this discussion.
There are actually 163 units in the lower portion of the site.
What's the percentage 164 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 on that?
Think about the remaining rental. I don't have those percentages on the tip of my tongue. Think about the remaining rental. Fifty of the 135, including the for sale, 50 are 7 in the senior building, okay? And the notion that 8 the senior building somehow has been taken off the 9 table is absurd; I have a copy and a resolution by 10 the Board of Directors of the Philadelphia Housing 11 Authority asserting that it will be a senior 12 building. 13 Fifty of the units of the rental units are 14 in the senior building, with 17,000 square fight of 15 commercial space along Ridge Avenue. That's what the community wanted, that's what everyone wanted. That's a separate entity.
Now, is this building that you were just talking about, is that the -- was it originally called the "Empty-Nester Building?"
Now it's a senior 165 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 building.
There's no such thing as an "Empty-Nester Building" in the federal jargon; that's why the nomenclature is no longer being used.
It is a building reserved for senior-only occupancy. It is 40 one-bedroom units and 10 two-bedroom units, as originally designed, and it does contain 17,000 square feet of commercial space for retail use. It is the building that everyone wanted.
Well, from time to time, we actually pay attention to those, so do you 166 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 want to enhance your answer or --
No. Is there an allowance that there is a number below 62?
If in fact there are not adequate seniors who make application to apply, the law and the regulations do permit what they call "near elderly," which is 50.
All right. Let me ask this question, 'cause I know I've made this request. Have you ever put together a proposal that would get to what is, I guess, kind of the number-one item that has been raised by a variety of people here today, which is this 50/50, 50/50 concept and laid out what it would take -- I know I've asked you this before -- what it would take to actually accomplish that? Or do you have do you think that that has any merit whatsoever? I mean, maybe I should ask you that question.
I think we're there. I mean, I was curious and interested and pleased to hear Mr. Lampert testify that this was intended for lower- and middle-income residents, and that is crystal-clear in every document that -- 167 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
If you say that we're there, then what I would like you to provide to us is a schedule that lays that out.
Okay. In doing so, would it be fair to assume that everyone who might have interest in that would agree that median income by definition is middle, because otherwise, there's no 12 technical definition of middle income, there's no 13 federal law or program that defines middle income, but is it fair to assume that --
Median, the middle of the income ranges within the jurisdiction.
So in your mind, the median income is a middle-income person.
Yes. Those clustered around the median would be considered middle income. I mean -- 168 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218
Is that a person that's at 100 percent of median or --
Okay. Well, whatever your definition is, you lay out a schedule that you think addresses the kind of the quad 50 concept, and I'd be interested in seeing that.
Okay, all right. Now, before we kind of wrap things up, because I'm going to give you an adjournment date, the gentleman from Universal, do you have anything you wish to share with us?
Well, I know there was a lot of mention about the community support services, and when we were transitioned into the responsibility for providing the supportive services, there's a 169 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 plan that exists, and we were following that plan. Needless to say, when you transfer work from one agency like RHD over to Universal, there is a lag in the transition. And we've been working very hard with the Resident Council staff that is currently located at Universal to overcome these -- the things that happened in the transition. And we have a very good plan for moving forward, and I think that the staff of the Resident Council would agree with that. So we should be on track with delivering these services as we move forward.
Thank you, anything else? I'm going to need to recess this hearing to Monday, December 10, at 2 o'clock p.m. Mr. Totaro, as you well know, I made a couple of information requests. To the extent that you can get that information and any other information that you think is relevant to the discussion that we've had earlier, if you could get that to me as soon as possible, I would greatly 170 11/19/01 COMMERCE/ECON. DEV. - RES. 010218 appreciate it so that we can be prepared to go more in depth in these particular discussions. I will send you a letter, but given the mail problems, as articulated by Director Greene, you are now formally invited and expected at the hearing on Monday, December 10th, at 2 o'clock. I do not know how more direct I could be in sharing that information. I will share you a confirming letter. Thank you. This hearing is recessed until that time. (Proceedings end at 1:56 p.m.) - - - 171 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Council Committee on Commerce and Economic Development of Monday, 11/19/01, 2001, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Resolution No.010218 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)